Why can't they make bikes that are de-restricted when you get off road? There are no speed limits off road or on road if it comes to it. You can peddle as fast as you can or like, without assistance. So I fail to understand why you cant have assistance over 15.5 mph, especially when off road. I've had three ebikes now over the past 4 years and constantly ride well over the assistance limit a lot of the time, under my own power. One of my bikes with a Shimano motor that was de-restricted to 20 mph, it's not a massive game changer, but I do prefer it. Is it illegal for manufacturers to sell ebikes that break the on road assistance speed limit? My guess is it's not. What do people think?
-
Warning!!
Riding a tuned or deristricted EMTB is not a trivial offence and can have serious legal consequences. Also, many manufacturers can detect the use of a tuning device or deristricting method and may decline a repair under warranty if it was modified from the intended original specification. Deristricting EMTB's can also add increased loads for motors and batteries. Riding above the local law limit may reclassify the bike as a low-powered bike, requiring insurance, registration and a number plate.
Be aware of your local country laws. Many laws prohibit use of modified EMTB's. It is your responsibility to check local laws. Ignoring it, has potential implications to trail access, and risk of prosecution in the event of an accident.
We advise members great caution. EMTB Forums accepts no liability for any content or advice given here.
Speed limit restrictions
- Thread starter jonmat
- Start date
It is illegal to sell bikes that do not comply with the law.
What you go after that is a different story.
I, personally, don't have an issue with it apart from finding the limits to be different in different regions and completely arbitrary.
What you go after that is a different story.
I, personally, don't have an issue with it apart from finding the limits to be different in different regions and completely arbitrary.
The laws are different in different countries, but in the UK, it is not an 'on road assistance speed limit', it is an 'any public right of way assistance limit' , so that could be roads, bridleways, footpaths (even though bikes are not technically allowed regardless of whether its an ebike or normal bike) etc. The only place you are legally ok to ride with the limit removed is private land (properly private) with the landowners permission.
I dont like the cut off speed set as low as it is (15.5 mph in uk) , but I can see that if there were no cut off limit at all there could be all sorts of issues, I'd be in favour of the cut off limit being raised to 20mph in the uk.
But in practice, off road riding is the place where the 15.5mph cut off least bothers me, its on roads where I mainly find it too low.
Last edited:
Tribey
Active member
Not only do the manufacturers have to apply this restriction, the law says they should also do their bit to make their systems anti-tamper too. So they are required by law to design their systems to stop the use of dongles/chips.
20mph is a happy limit speed for most, but there are countless thread posts discussing 504 errors, where riders say there V3 chip is set to 50mph without issue. Now you wonder if 50mph is a suitable cut-off for bridleways and tow paths.
20mph is a happy limit speed for most, but there are countless thread posts discussing 504 errors, where riders say there V3 chip is set to 50mph without issue. Now you wonder if 50mph is a suitable cut-off for bridleways and tow paths.
The law draws no distinction between where a bike is ridden. This information is literally a google search away.
Riding an electric bike: the rules
Electric bikes meeting the EAPC regulations can be ridden on the road without being taxed, licensed or insured.
In the uk Its not just illegal to ride one on public roads, its illegal to ride one on any public right of way/area - so no riding them on bridleways,footpaths etc etc as well as roads.
Yes you can, but they're also illegal to ride on any public right of way, they can only be used on private land with permission from the landowner.
pedelecs (which is what your average ebike sold by normal bike shops is) cannot be sold with the assistance limit turned off, because then they wouldnt meet the legal definition of a pedelec , and therefore would no longer be a pedelec, even though it would look exactly the same as the same model of bike sat next to it that hadnt been derestricted.
I suspect that derestricted ebikes for use on private land only are generally not sold by bike dealers for a few reasons, but probably primarily because the manufacturer wont honour the warranty if derestricted , so the dealer will be stuck paying for any warranty issues to be fixed. And possibly also because of the legal grey area they end up in if a customer who bought a destricted bike for use on private land only actually used in on public land and caused a nuisance, but claimed the dealer didnt make it clear that it was for use on private land only.
pedelec (a real one that complies with the pedelec definition) is equivalent to a pedal cycle in law and can be used anywhere a pedal cycle can be used - as soon as you modify it in such a way that it no longer meets the definition of pedelec, it becomes an unlicensed vehicle and not legal to use anywhere public - just the same as buying an unlicensed motorbike/motorcrosser etc.
You could ,in theory, get some indicators and whatever else would be required to register a derestricted pedelec as a motorcycle, get some insurance, get a helmet, get the correct driving license, and then only ride it where motorcycles are allowed to be ridden. But then its probably easier and cheaper to just buy a proper motorcycle.
Last edited:
raymal
Member
Unless of course you are a Deliveroo or Uber Eats rider, then you can do whatever speed you want on road or pavement
How is such a law enforced? It's pretty common that I ride faster than the assist-limit on my bike. How would the Trail Police know whether you're riding under your own power, or with assistance? And how would they know how fast you're going?
It isn't. Until you mow down someone's beloved granny, Then it is.
2WheelsNot4
E*POWAH Master
Because people being people and we know how people are would use them on the road or anywhere else they could use them.
People cant be trusted remember
Neeko DeVinchi
E*POWAH Elite World Champion
Generally speaking, the use of a de-restrict ebike falls under a 'aggravating factor'. The main offence committed would be, no insurance, no license.
In the UK, I've not seen anyone being solely prosecuted for using a de-restrict ebike. And even if he/she were too,
A. Said defendant would be entitled to challenge the offence in a trial (which that, would be interesting to prepare)
B. The points to prove in the hypothetical offence of 'using a de-restrict ebike', would need to be defined very very carefully.
Granted, I to do understand the frustration of the speed limit in certain circumstances. But let's not try and complicate or rationalise ebikes which can exceed 15.5mph/20mph. Such bikes do exist and have done for sometime. The onus is on the individual who chooses to use the bike. Whether they acknowledge right from wrong and choose to ride in areas permissible. Or whether they choose to ignore them.
In the UK, I've not seen anyone being solely prosecuted for using a de-restrict ebike. And even if he/she were too,
A. Said defendant would be entitled to challenge the offence in a trial (which that, would be interesting to prepare)
B. The points to prove in the hypothetical offence of 'using a de-restrict ebike', would need to be defined very very carefully.
Granted, I to do understand the frustration of the speed limit in certain circumstances. But let's not try and complicate or rationalise ebikes which can exceed 15.5mph/20mph. Such bikes do exist and have done for sometime. The onus is on the individual who chooses to use the bike. Whether they acknowledge right from wrong and choose to ride in areas permissible. Or whether they choose to ignore them.
They wouldn't, there's no absolute speed limit that the bike can't exceed, it's just that the motor must stop providing assistance at 15.5mph. I regularly exceed 15.5mph on my (perfectly legal and un modified) ebike, usually hit 30mph ish on down hill trails. The same as I would do on my normal bike.
If you did something bad and the police seized the bike they could test that it stops assisting at 15.5mph.
It is the law though that the motor must stop assisting at 15.5mph. Wonder if anyone has been done for it?
2WheelsNot4
E*POWAH Master
If you knock someone down and severely injure them, or if its an old person and they should die, even if its was solely their fault from walking out and not looking, then you will be going to prison and be demonized in the daily mail. The charge will be the bike was illegally modified, and that was the reason for the injuries/fatality. doesnt matter if you were doing 10mph on a clear day and you had everything else right about the bike, tyre pressures spot on, brakes in fully working order etc etc, the modification will damn you.
Look at the case of the guy using a single speeder without a front brake. That lack of brake was the sole aspectt of the prosecution case and he was jailed for it. Didn't matter that he could normally stop in time, it was just the fact it was missing and not in accordance with the law that meant he was sure to be found guilty.
Look at the case of the guy using a single speeder without a front brake. That lack of brake was the sole aspectt of the prosecution case and he was jailed for it. Didn't matter that he could normally stop in time, it was just the fact it was missing and not in accordance with the law that meant he was sure to be found guilty.
Neeko DeVinchi
E*POWAH Elite World Champion
In those circumstances, it would still amount to s47 ABH. triable either way.
How do you make 'severe injury' a s47 and not a s20?
If your illegal bike put me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life ain't no way I am settling for a s47, and I very much doubt a magistrate would either. So off to Crown it would go.
And a death by reckless would be Crown in any event.
This is my take on it, but you are an expert in the field so I would welcome why the above would not be the case.
It doesn't need a hypothetical offence. An unrestricted ebike becomes a motorcycle and therefore falls under the same well-defined legislation that relates to MC's.
Neeko DeVinchi
E*POWAH Elite World Champion
You have to understand @Planemo, any offence to which a defendant is convicted must be decided 'beyond reasonable doubt'. and cannot be considered through hypothetical or theoretical circumstances.
s47 assault would not be out of place if a suspect is found to have carelessly or recklessly assaulted someone with an aggravating factor whereby the victim was struck by said cyclist on a bike (doesn't matter if its ebike or regular). Factors to determine whether the case is deemed unsuitable for magistrates court trial would be whether said bike has been tampered or modified. Whereby the aggravating factor becomes complex in nature.
In addition (whilst I recognise that this thread is more on the topic of speed restriction). If a suspect assaults someone by riding a bike, the speed in which they are moving becomes irrelevant. Thus, points to prove to satisfy that sufficient evidence has been compiled through a police investigation, becomes more straightforward. Whereas charging a suspect with an
Indictable offence must be considered knowing that the evidence falls into that criteria with the compiled evidence. And subsequently, is not a mistreat of justice.
And this is just the start. Other factors such as human rights, right to appeal, right to challenge an offence in criminal proceedings, sentencing guidelines etc all play a part.
So to summarise (putting my mind as if I were a prosecutor with the intention to secure a conviction), it would be safer and leave no room for error to persue an either way assault charge vs a charge whereby throughout the proceedings, could possibly be amended to a 'lesser' charge. Whereby leaving defence avenues to explore in their aid to act in the defendant (their client)'a best interests. Thus, reducing the likelihood of a sentence appropriate to victims trauma, struggles, anguish and subsequent ramifications from his/her injuries.
s47 assault would not be out of place if a suspect is found to have carelessly or recklessly assaulted someone with an aggravating factor whereby the victim was struck by said cyclist on a bike (doesn't matter if its ebike or regular). Factors to determine whether the case is deemed unsuitable for magistrates court trial would be whether said bike has been tampered or modified. Whereby the aggravating factor becomes complex in nature.
In addition (whilst I recognise that this thread is more on the topic of speed restriction). If a suspect assaults someone by riding a bike, the speed in which they are moving becomes irrelevant. Thus, points to prove to satisfy that sufficient evidence has been compiled through a police investigation, becomes more straightforward. Whereas charging a suspect with an
Indictable offence must be considered knowing that the evidence falls into that criteria with the compiled evidence. And subsequently, is not a mistreat of justice.
And this is just the start. Other factors such as human rights, right to appeal, right to challenge an offence in criminal proceedings, sentencing guidelines etc all play a part.
So to summarise (putting my mind as if I were a prosecutor with the intention to secure a conviction), it would be safer and leave no room for error to persue an either way assault charge vs a charge whereby throughout the proceedings, could possibly be amended to a 'lesser' charge. Whereby leaving defence avenues to explore in their aid to act in the defendant (their client)'a best interests. Thus, reducing the likelihood of a sentence appropriate to victims trauma, struggles, anguish and subsequent ramifications from his/her injuries.
Ah that old chestnut - going for the easiest/safest conviction. Usual battle of the Lawyers stuff.
The discussion originally started with the poster stating 'severe injuries'. He then went on to mention if a person died. You suggested (for both) that it would all be relatively rosy and sorted out for the offending rider by throwing an ABH charge at it and whacking it into a Magistrates.
If you're happy going for an ABH charge when someone is left in a wheelchair for the rest of their life then you (as a prosecutor) would be selling yourself short IMO, and certainly that of the victim.
And I maintain (contrary to your comments) that a death involving a derestricted ebike will get far more involved than a Sec47 ABH in a magistrates. For sure, I certainly wouldn't want to be the rider gripping the rail in those proceedings.
BTW, I don't think a jury would have too much trouble finding that a rider is 'reckless' by default if they are using a derestricted ebike in a public place with people around. And I still don't understand your focus on the 'aggravating factor' or that it becomes 'complex' - it matters not the ins and outs of how the bike has been modified etc - the fact remains it will be classed as an unlicensed, untaxed, unregistered and uninsured motorcycle, and would be treated as such in terms of traffic law.
Interesting to hear your take on it though. You have ridden a fair few derestricted bikes haven't you?
The discussion originally started with the poster stating 'severe injuries'. He then went on to mention if a person died. You suggested (for both) that it would all be relatively rosy and sorted out for the offending rider by throwing an ABH charge at it and whacking it into a Magistrates.
If you're happy going for an ABH charge when someone is left in a wheelchair for the rest of their life then you (as a prosecutor) would be selling yourself short IMO, and certainly that of the victim.
And I maintain (contrary to your comments) that a death involving a derestricted ebike will get far more involved than a Sec47 ABH in a magistrates. For sure, I certainly wouldn't want to be the rider gripping the rail in those proceedings.
BTW, I don't think a jury would have too much trouble finding that a rider is 'reckless' by default if they are using a derestricted ebike in a public place with people around. And I still don't understand your focus on the 'aggravating factor' or that it becomes 'complex' - it matters not the ins and outs of how the bike has been modified etc - the fact remains it will be classed as an unlicensed, untaxed, unregistered and uninsured motorcycle, and would be treated as such in terms of traffic law.
Interesting to hear your take on it though. You have ridden a fair few derestricted bikes haven't you?
Neeko DeVinchi
E*POWAH Elite World Champion
In answer to your last point, yes. I have ridden ebikes which are capable of exceeding 15.5mph. Technically I've never de-restricted an ebike (to tamper with a motor which the manufacturer did not want for the product). The ebikes which I have built (some of them anyway), are capable of exceeding 15.5mph. And thus, I have not (nore ever) will take a motor and add third-party software or hardware to tamper with the settings. Hell, I've never touched the BLevo app whereas most riders with specialized ebikes have
.As for the circumstances if death is caused (or serious life changing injuries) as a result of the assault, that is a different circumstance which would push the criteria into a different offence category. It 'may' fall under 'death by dangerous/careless driving' as the points to prove for this offence are,
-being driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously
-caused the death of another person
-on a road or public place
s1 of the Road traffic Act 1988
Or,
Wanton & Furious Driving which the points to prove are,
-in charge of a vehicle or carriage,
-by wanton/furious driving/racing or other willful misconduct,
-did cause bodily harm to be done to another
s35 of the offence against the Person Act 1863.
Either offence is indictable but I illustrate my point. As a case would need to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that an offence has been committed.
The definition of a vehicle is a conveyance (usually with wheels), built to (or can demonstrate) transporting of people, goods etc. Examples of such vehicles would include, car, cart, sledge, truck, carriages etc. Essentially, anything which is a receptacle in which something is placed in order to be moved.
So in other (again, my mind as if I was a prosecutor), I would persue the offence which leaves no room for failure.
2WheelsNot4
E*POWAH Master
Actually one of the points made by the judge in the case of the hipster single speeder knocking down and killing the girl who wandered into the road eyes fixed on her phone, stated his bike was "Build for speed"
Certainly doesn't sound an irrelevant point to me
especially considering thats just a stripped down single speeder and not a motor driven affair thats been illegally modified to exceed the current laws on ebike maximums.
Last edited:
One reason this issue continues to be raised is that the limit applied to motor assistance is called and considered by all to be "Speed Restriction". Firstly that is not accurate since what we have is a MOTOR ASSISTED speed restriction. Secondly, the restriction has little to do with safety or indeed how fast an ebike is propelled and everything to do with CLASSIFICATION and differentiation of pedelecs from other categories of motorised transport. It is that differentiation which enables pedelecs to classed as bicycles.
As a result of that classification none of the following Traffic Act regulations apply:
1. Type approval ( an expensive process for manufacturers)
2. Road tax
3. Insurance
4. Driving licence
5. MOT tests
6. Driver test/qualification
7. Front and rear lights
8. Brake lights
9. M/C helmet
De-restrict..............and all of the above apply if the vehicle is used anywhere other than private land with the land owners permission.
Whether or not you get caught is a different issue, but if you are the impact will likely impact on all the EMTB community not just you.
Whether or not you agree with the regulation is irrelevant unless your objection forms a lobby with Goverment to encourage a review.
Manufacturers who fail to take reasonable measures to secure their products against de-restriction risk sanctions
LBS or others that assist or contribute to the processes of de-restriction face sanction from the manufacturers/suppliers as well as enforcers of the law.
As a result of that classification none of the following Traffic Act regulations apply:
1. Type approval ( an expensive process for manufacturers)
2. Road tax
3. Insurance
4. Driving licence
5. MOT tests
6. Driver test/qualification
7. Front and rear lights
8. Brake lights
9. M/C helmet
De-restrict..............and all of the above apply if the vehicle is used anywhere other than private land with the land owners permission.
Whether or not you get caught is a different issue, but if you are the impact will likely impact on all the EMTB community not just you.
Whether or not you agree with the regulation is irrelevant unless your objection forms a lobby with Goverment to encourage a review.
Manufacturers who fail to take reasonable measures to secure their products against de-restriction risk sanctions
LBS or others that assist or contribute to the processes of de-restriction face sanction from the manufacturers/suppliers as well as enforcers of the law.
Calsun
New Member
A Class 3 bike will provide pedal assistance up to 28 mph. No need to be paranoid as these are sold by major manufacturers including Trek, Specialized, Yamaha, etc.
As per my post above, in the Eu and the UK a class 3 pedelec is referred to as a Speed Pedelec and is classified as a moped not a bicycle. The only classification enjoying the same access and laws as the bicycle is the class 1 pedelec ( UK and Europe............other countries may vary....in the US it varies by State).
Thanks for clarifying that. Although I am sure you are aware that it's totally irrelevant whether you derestrict a pedelec or buy an ebike that is already outside the scope of UK pedelec legislation. Both are as illegal as the other in public spaces. I only mention that because the tone of your quote suggests that it's OK if its designed from the outset to be outside of scope.
To be frank, I don't think it's illustrating your point at all. You just listed two potential offences that are Crown Court indictable - a far cry from your initial post where you said any charges would be ABH, and suggested that any charges would only be heard in a Magistrates.
I will add that you're also only focusing on the outcome of the criminal prosecution. The prospect of a separate civil case to sue the rider depending on how satisfied the victim is with the criminal sanction is not to be dismissed. This could potentially (financially and emotionally) ruin the rider, their work prospects and as a result any family they have/support. If a pedestrian was left with life changing injuries there is every chance the rider could be forced into bankruptcy. I know for sure that if I was left unable to work, I would be coming to you to cover the wages that I now wouldn't be able to earn. And anyone in a County Court would agree with me, especially if you have a related criminal conviction (of any severity) against you.
Not sure why you quoted that. Are you suggesting that a bike isn't a vehicle? I only ask because your last sentence suggested that something needs to be placed in a receptacle for it to qualify as one. I just wanted to make sure you are are aware that a rider alone is enough to qualify. Hence the clampdown on escooters as they are 'mechanically propelled vehicles'.
The burden of proof in criminal law is always 'beyond reasonable doubt' whether it's heard in Magistrates or Crown so again I don't understand why you posted that, or how it's relevant.
No offence but it clears up any doubt (if I had any) that, assuming you would still go for ABH as per your initial post, I would be finding another brief.
Just to be clear, as I have said before it's not my place to tell anyone whether they should or shouldn't ride ebikes that are outside of legislation, but those that do so should make their choices aware of the ramifications, which however remote, are very real and very life destroying should the shit really hit the fan. I feel you have totally dismissed the scale of potential impact and that your advice is dangerous.
Edited to correct quotes properly
Beekeeper
🍯Honey Monster🍯
Unless of course you are a Deliveroo or Uber Eats rider, then you can do whatever speed you want on road or pavement
Nobody wants a cold Pizza
The Met Police have used the pedelec regulations to get rid of electric Rickshaws in London & prosecuted the operators, irrespective of what Rickshaws actually are, the feds measured them against the 250W, 40kg, 15.5mph rules.
www.mylondon.news
Police seize 65 rickshaws with illegal motors added to make them go faster
Modified rickshaws count as motor vehicles and are illegal without insurance and a driving licence
Neeko DeVinchi
E*POWAH Elite World Champion
Lol, civil proceedings. Really @Planemo.......yeah good luck with that (and I say that to anyone who 'believes' that they can receive financial compensation after being a victim/injured party by use of an illegal ebike by pursuing a civil case).
Anywho, considering that my antics have not constituted towards my character being tarnished through dishonesty or my reputation being tarnished through having conversations, I'll stick to what I know. People are free to 'indulge' in the trivia to which they feel comfortable digested the two minutes of research they spend looking bits and pieces on Google
Anywho, considering that my antics have not constituted towards my character being tarnished through dishonesty or my reputation being tarnished through having conversations, I'll stick to what I know. People are free to 'indulge' in the trivia to which they feel comfortable digested the two minutes of research they spend looking bits and pieces on Google
Glad you find it funny and apparently unthinkable that anyone would be able to claim any finances from you should you put them in a wheelchair for life.
I'll leave that last bit up to the readers to decide.
2WheelsNot4
E*POWAH Master
Maybe you should stop tarnishing it and look to polish it instead
Similar Threads
-
-
-
PearTune 2.10 not cutting off at 15.5 when off- Started by iThoughTiSawApussyCat
- Replies: 0
-
-