Throttle

 

I somewhat agree with Clarkey. My feeling is we are very lucky to have this special dispensation allowing the use of electric power on bikes without interference from government.

 

I also am worried that if we push these limits too far we may end up loosing what we have already.

 

However;

 

I do take exception with the throttle restrictions for many of the arguments made in this thread thus far, I believe that a full throttle up to 15.5mph makes the bikes safer to ride in poor conditions and of course enables the rider to take a rest occasionally which surely is the point of an electric bike. I also believe a 350W motor would make hill climbing less difficult and help a rider to maintain a sensible speed, again making the bike safer.

 

We at BEBA will be making a report to the DfT, I will include arguments from this thread.

 

Best regards

 

David

over the festive period I rode from Ipswich to Botesdale and back on the B1113 on two separate occasiona, although it wasn't too treacherous there were times I was glad for the throttle and the handliing of a e-bike and I would surely have stacked it on my pushbike...

I somewhat agree with Clarkey. My feeling is we are very lucky to have this special dispensation allowing the use of electric power on bikes without interference from government.

 

I also am worried that if we push these limits too far we may end up loosing what we have already.

 

However;

 

I do take exception with the throttle restrictions for many of the arguments made in this thread thus far, I believe that a full throttle up to 15.5mph makes the bikes safer to ride in poor conditions and of course enables the rider to take a rest occasionally which surely is the point of an electric bike. I also believe a 350W motor would make hill climbing less difficult and help a rider to maintain a sensible speed, again making the bike safer.

 

 

We at BEBA will be making a report to the DfT, I will include arguments from this thread.

 

Best regards

 

David

 

Thanks David

 

I've only had my E-bike since about October last year, and I like it the way it is. The throttle is just a nice extra that helps better the E-bike experience and sets E-bikes apart from normal bikes, although I realise we do need rules for Health & Safety issues, I just can't see any problems in having a throttle.

 

Best regards

Mark

I totally concur with Marky T on the throttle issue.I also hope David and other representatives fight hard on this issue, a throttle driven bike is far safer to ride especially in this icy weather where fine control is needed.

Kept to around15.5 mph + -10% i could live with. Totally pedelec, i dont think ebikes will ever meet their potential and sales would suffer. I know members are divided on this issue but if its a very small number of ebike enthusiasts with very large wallets {Kalkhoff etc} then lose the throttle. If its a relatively cheap car alternative that can improve the lifestyle of overweight youngsters, the elderly on state pensions and arthritis sufferers like myself then throttles are better. The ebike properly marketed and safely utilised could take thousands of polluting and congesting cars off the road in the u.k for most of the year. £2000+pedelec only ebikes ebikes? you get what you pay for,most couldnt justify the expense fuel costs considered. Id rather pay insurance to run a decent ebike though than see them legislated into impracticality or reserved as a rich mans toy.

I guess its a little like Americans and there guns..........I don't use the throttle that much but defend my right to own one!

throttle use

 

I somewhat agree with Clarkey. My feeling is we are very lucky to have this special dispensation allowing the use of electric power on bikes without interference from government.

 

I also am worried that if we push these limits too far we may end up loosing what we have already.

 

However;

 

I do take exception with the throttle restrictions for many of the arguments made in this thread thus far, I believe that a full throttle up to 15.5mph makes the bikes safer to ride in poor conditions and of course enables the rider to take a rest occasionally which surely is the point of an electric bike. I also believe a 350W motor would make hill climbing less difficult and help a rider to maintain a sensible speed, again making the bike safer.

 

We at BEBA will be making a report to the DfT, I will include arguments from this thread.

 

Best regards

 

David

 

The new EU build and safety standard for epacs took several years to complete. The Dutch delegates (Giant and Panasonic) at first wanted to invite the Japanese to attend the committee meetings to push for the Japanese standard to be adopted. Other delegates, notable the Germans said they would pull out of negotiations if the Japanese were allowed to attend, the Dutch dropped the request. The British delegates wanted to introduce a section for pure throttle operation to be included in the standard, as at that time it was felt that to restrict epacs to pedal assist only would damage sales in the UK market; this was opposed by the Dutch who still wanted the Japanese standard introduced. It was pointed out by the chairman of the committee (France) that the committee was dealing with build and safety issues not each countries local road traffic act requirements and that pure throttle operation was not a safety issue. As at that time the DfT had stated they had no intention to change the road traffic act in the UK, this point of throttle operation was dropped to allow progress on the standard to move forward.

 

To give an example, a restricted 50 cc moped has the same build and safety standard throughout the EU, however in France you can ride a 50 cc moped at age 14 without a license, in the UK you have to have a full driving license issued before 2001 take a one day CBT course, or have a provisional license and be at least 16. Each countries riding requirements having no bearing on the build and safety standard.

 

For the DfT to now want to change the road traffic act, for something that is not a safety issue and is not required by EU laws, and will be to the detriment of UK sales is unfair.

 

Also the DfT says that by bringing the pedal assist only regulation into force will allow the UK suppliers to compete on a like for like basis with other EEC countries and reduce costs is ridiculous, to add pedal assist to full powered bike costs almost nothing, and as can been seen from offerings by almost all UK suppliers they have dual system bikes already.

 

A final point is that under motorcycle type approval safety testing for low powered mopeds (the class that most electric bikes would fall into if the law was changed) their is no set test for throttle construction or application. As it is not considered a safety issue.

I rest my case. :D

200W or 700W

 

The problem is that the majority of regulators are not electric bike riders and do not have a clue how a throttle and a correctly powered motor would add to our enjoyment and safety. It seems they would rather be ultra cautious, at the moment it is politically correct dumb down and restrict rather than let market forces work out the optimum specs.

 

It is interesting that in the USA and Canada where full throttles, speeds of up to 20mph and 700W of power is permissible the trend is for 350W motors as they give the optimum performance in speed, range and safety.

 

We at BEBA along with ETRA will certainly be trying to persuade DfT and EU to make changes but it could take a while!

 

In my opinion a 17mph, 350W, full throttle is absolutly spot on.

 

All the best

 

David

I rest my case. :D

 

being right wont help if the dfT change the road traffic act, removing the use of a throttle will damage the electric bike trade in the UK. It may not affect most of the members here, but in general terms I think it could reduce sales by more than 50%....i would stress this is just my opinion.

50%

 

Hi Dan

 

I think 50% may be a little high, don't forget we can have a throttle up to 6kph and then as long as you are turning the pedals the throttle does not need to cut out until 15.5mph +/- 10%.

 

I am delighted the DfT are asking the questions and hopefully will give us a sensible decision.

 

All the best

 

David

The problem is that the majority of regulators are not electric bike riders and do not have a clue how a throttle and a correctly powered motor would add to our enjoyment and safety. It seems they would rather be ultra cautious, at the moment it is politically correct dumb down and restrict rather than let market forces work out the optimum specs.

 

It is interesting that in the USA and Canada where full throttles, speeds of up to 20mph and 700W of power is permissible the trend is for 350W motors as they give the optimum performance in speed, range and safety.

 

We at BEBA along with ETRA will certainly be trying to persuade DfT and EU to make changes but it could take a while!

 

In my opinion a 17mph, 350W, full throttle is absolutly spot on.

 

All the best

 

David

 

Hi David,

 

I see what you mean, we really need to get our point across and let the regulators see our needs. Obviously we need speed restrictions which would probably one of the first things on their list, but we need our health and safety points of veiw aired and now we have people like yourself in BEBA, thank goodness, our opinions maybe taken into account.

 

Regards Mark

Hi Dan

 

I think 50% may be a little high, don't forget we can have a throttle up to 6kph and then as long as you are turning the pedals the throttle does not need to cut out until 15.5mph +/- 10%.

 

I am delighted the DfT are asking the questions and hopefully will give us a sensible decision.

 

All the best

 

David

 

You agree it will cause loss of sales to the detriment of the UK electric bike trade, and that removal of the throttle will not give you any significant advantage in the rest of the EU, ending in a net loss sales to all UK suppliers.

You need to press the point.

 

Also this is not the first time the DfT has considered this action, they did the same in 2001/2, and after representation from what was then a much smaller electric bike industry, elected not to change the law.

For me the throttle is a safety feature as it makes the bike far more stable when ridden across snow and ice, I can't see that swaying opinion though.

The problem is that the majority of regulators are not electric bike riders and do not have a clue how a throttle and a correctly powered motor would add to our enjoyment and safety. It seems they would rather be ultra cautious, at the moment it is politically correct dumb down and restrict rather than let market forces work out the optimum specs.

 

whilst I don't know what went on in foreign lands, what I think may have "poisoned the well" in Britain nearly 10 years ago now was a large amount of electric and petrol "mini-motos/monkey bikes" which were basically kids' toys, got ridden anti-socially by "chavs" (particularly on cycle paths) and that is what some Civil Servants may well associate with "electric bikes" (especially having been lobbied by the cops and local Councils when this happened)

 

there might even be a bit of "pro-pushbike" snobbery as being a former Civil Servant I know for a fact there is a very strong "pro-cycling" lobby within Whitehall, particularly within Defra and DfT, with 700c wheeled hybrids or tourers being preffered to mountain bikes!

 

I think its worth putting across the strong point that something like a Wisper is a high value machine purchased by a responsible citizen and if they are younger in age they are usually in their late 20s or 30s and safe road users, they have chosen not to obtain a moped/motorcycle and are happy with the "slower" speed but can and do safely make use of a throttle.

 

I agree that 350W / 17mph would be a good compromise between speed, power and battery range. Incidentally if this were allowed, would this be available as an upgrade to an existing 905?

 

Also this is not the first time the DfT has considered this action, they did the same in 2001/2, and after representation from what was then a much smaller electric bike industry, elected not to change the law.

 

This wasn't due to any representation or a concious decision by the DfT.

 

The British law permitting throttles was accidentally left on place instead of being rescinded when the civil service left enactment of the EU pedelecs law order to the last minute, rushing it through parliament on 10th November.

 

Here's the EU order, from which you'll see that we passed it into law one day late as a result of that rush. Note the words, "and abolish their previous regulation", the point on which our civil service failed:

 

The EU-Directive 2002/24/EC concerning the Type approval for two and three wheeled vehicles has been released by the European Parliament and the Council on March 18, 2002.

 

In Article1 (h) “cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kW, of which the output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 km/h, or sooner, if the cyclist stops pedaling” are excluded from type approval.

 

Pedelecs which exceed the technical specifications must have a type approval and are classified as “mopeds”, and must consequently abide by all additional laws, i.e. motorcycle helmet, adequate brakes, mirrors etc.

 

The EU Directive 2002/24/EC comes into effect on

May 9, 2003 and will replace the current Directive

92/61/EEC.

 

Until May 9, 2003 the current national regulations concerning the status of pedelecs will remain unchanged.

After May 9, 2003, the EU Member States have the choice of either keeping their current regulations for another 6 months or changing over to the EU-directive.

 

By November 9, 2003 all Members of the EU are required to integrate this Directive into their national legislation and abolish their previous regulations.

 

Therefore our 1983 EAPC regulations permitting throttles should by law have been abolished by 9th November 2003.

.

Edited January 12, 201016 yr by flecc

a throttle is essential. How can you have electric bike conversion kits with out a throttle based system?

a throttle is essential. How can you have electric bike conversion kits with out a throttle based system?

 

To comply the system would need a pedal sensor set up so that the motor cuts out if the rider stops pedaling. It's throttle only control that lets you ride without pedaling that's not allowed under the EU rules.

This wasn't due to any representation or a concious decision by the DfT.

 

The British law permitting throttles was accidentally left on place instead of being rescinded when the civil service left enactment of the EU pedelecs law order to the last minute, rushing it through parliament on 10th November.

 

Here's the EU order, from which you'll see that we passed it into law one day late as a result of that rush. Note the words, "and abolish their previous regulation", the point on which our civil service failed:

 

Sorry you are wrong, I personaly sent in representation and spoke to the DfT in september 2001 along with many other people in the electric bike trade. I also had, along other members of the BSI bike standard committee, long discusions with the DfT representataive on that committee, and we were told by him that no changes would be made to the road traffic act. That is were we are now, and the DfT are, even now, saying they have the option to do nothing, that would not be the situation if they were compelled to change the road traffic act.

 

Strong representation from the electric bike trade can still halt these changes.

 

I agree that 350W / 17mph would be a good compromise between speed, power and battery range. Incidentally if this were allowed, would this be available as an upgrade to an existing 905?

 

Certainly Alex!

 

All the best

 

David

Strong representation from the electric bike trade can still halt these changes.

 

Although I am in no way one of those extreme-right anti-EU nuts I'm sure that all EU nations still have (or will take) some sort of veto against their national legislation/standards being changed on a whim from Brussels without reference to local issues, and even if Brussels is trying to remove this I think many nations (not just UK) would collectively protest.

 

After all each nations road traffic laws also take into account safety considerations caused by individual infrastructure differences, such as how small mopeds are allowed on cycle paths in some EU nations but there is stricter rules on the max speed and power of these mopeds (and these rules are actually enforced).

 

Surely if that were not the case, we in the UK would be plugging in all our bike chargers into Schuko/Europlug sockets already, our road signs would be in km/h or km and we'd be riding on the other side of the road?

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by Alex728

 

Sorry you are wrong, I personaly sent in representation and spoke to the DfT in september 2001 along with many other people in the electric bike trade. I also had, along other members of the BSI bike standard committee, long discusions with the DfT representataive on that committee, and we were told by him that no changes would be made to the road traffic act. That is were we are now, and the DfT are, even now, saying they have the option to do nothing, that would not be the situation if they were compelled to change the road traffic act.

 

Strong representation from the electric bike trade can still halt these changes.

 

I do understand that representations were made, but the EU order was both clear and legal and the civil service neglected to obey the order to abolish existing legislation by 9th November 2003. After all, that was long after those representations.

 

Obviously the DfT seem to be continuing to defy that order, but I cannot understand how they think there was and is a legal option to do nothing, since they did pass the EU order into law.

 

They have been consistent meanwhile in saying that it's the British law that counts, but in view of the fact that nearly all the product on the UK market doesn't comply with British law since it's nearly all 250 watts, their position has produced a ridiculous situation of widespread illegality under either legislation.

.

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by flecc

Obviously the DfT seem to be continuing to defy that order, but I cannot understand how they think there was and is a legal option to do nothing, since they did pass the EU order into law.

 

They have been consistent meanwhile in saying that it's the British law that counts, but in view of the fact that nearly all the product on the UK market doesn't comply with British law since it's nearly all 250 watts, their position has produced a ridiculous situation of widespread illegality under either legislation.

.

 

true, but I expect with continuing anti-EU sentiment they feel they can get away with this whatever the colour of government (perhaps more so should it shift to the right later this year).

 

What would be the penalties anyway? I know that with Defra and agricultural benefits a country could get "disallowed" if they didn't follow the rules and then the bit of EU tax their citizens paid out for subsidies got "confiscated" (although usually the disagreements were sorted out and the money later returned). Maybe the amounts at risk aren't that much with roads (do the EU fund any of our roads?) so there's no risk in "breaking the rules"...

 

What would be the penalties anyway? I know that with Defra and agricultural benefits a country could get "disallowed" if they didn't follow the rules and then the bit of EU tax their citizens paid out for subsidies got "confiscated" (although usually the disagreements were sorted out and the money later returned). Maybe the amounts at risk aren't that much with roads (do the EU fund any of our roads?) so there's no risk in "breaking the rules"...

 

An EU country can be fined for non compliance, and I don't think they have any limits to the fines as some commercial organisations have found to their cost.

 

I believe there has been some trunk road funding from the EU in the past.

.

I have adream.......

 

I think there should be a dozen or so ebikes at the out of town terminals where commuters leave their cars and get flexibuses into work in the city centres.(at least they do outside Belfast}

These should be for hire, and be 17m.p.h 350w throttle bikes as was suggested. In all but awful weather with a bit of publicity i think the bikes would become popular for commuters and the general public would soon want to own more ebikes.

Perhaps David and the representatives could suggest this. This thread is sounding pretty negative for the future of spevs and ebikes. Can someone get the ear of some visionary politico that these bikes are really good for the environment and create new regulations particilar to ebikes especially. Anything outside the former specs could be classed as moped and require insurance perhaps but no mot required,albeit some other no fee regular inspection.?

This should be presented as a car traffic reducing measure and a means of improving public health by lessening pollution and promoting exercise.

Just think how many Wispers that would require David?or Kalkhoffs or other models for whoever else is represented.

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by tonio

unless (or even if) run on a similar way to car hire schemes with appropriate security these bikes would need to be locked down like Fort Knox and fitted with every kind of tracking device imaginable if they were expected to last more than 5 minutes.

 

the problem in the UK is there is a legislative prejudice against two wheelers including smaller mopeds. bicycles and ebikes are literally forced into the gutter - pokey little paths which by DfT's own admission are unsuitable for speeds over 18mph - whilst younger riders of small mopeds have the ludicrous situation that the CBT expires after 2 years when their foreign counterparts either don't even need any sort of test at all for smaller mopeds (however they are fuelled) or if they do its valid for life/unless they take a test for a more powerful motorcycle.