Authorities are waking up...

[RustyMTB]

Sure. Sometimes in risk management, you present a solution to a risk that has almost zero probability of happening, just to cover off anyone going down that path.

 

[Vision_Tim]

OP is a shit stirrer, sometimes a troll for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure he got what he wanted out of this.

 

[Joecrow]

With UK riding access laws so easily swayed. Support him in the UK at your own peril.

Sure. Sometimes in risk management, you present a solution to a risk that has almost zero probability of happening, just to cover off anyone going down that path.

It's not at all clear to me what solution you are presenting or indeed what you believe the risk is!
What you need to understand is that the countryside in the UK has a massive wealth of bridal-ways, trails, green roads and public footpaths with historic rights of way for various forms of transport. Currently pedalecs are categorized as bicycles which are permitted on pretty much everything except public footpaths which are for pedestrians only. The worry is, according to friends and relatives in the UK who are regular EMTB riders (being a resident in Germany I only get a chance to ride in the UK on my occasional visits), that the UK government might decide to designate all forms of e-bikes as motor vehicles as a way to regulate the currently illegal and unrestricted electric vehicles masquerading as pedalecs and as knee jerk reaction to the bad publicity surrounding their use in crime and anti-social behavior. In that case EMTBs would only be allowed on the green roads, same as motocross motor bikers and the 4 wheel drive off road brigade. It should be noted that the UK does not currently allow e-scooters to be used outside of private land except for a few city based trial hire schemes on the basis that they need to asses the safety and they don't comply to any current vehicle category. Inevitably there will be new legislation and e-scooters will be categarised and registered as a motor vehicle requiring a number plate, tax, insurance, etc. same as in most other countries in Europe. It would not take much to add pedalec categories covering all e-bikes to that new legislation rather than having them all lumped together as tax free "bicycles", imo. Whether the UK vehicle registration centre in Swansea could handle such a huge new demand is another question so it could be a long time coming.

 

[irie]

It's not at all clear to me what solution you are presenting or indeed what you believe the risk is!
What you need to understand is that the countryside in the UK has a massive wealth of bridal-ways, trails, green roads and public footpaths with historic rights of way for various forms of transport. Currently pedalecs are categorized as bicycles which are permitted on pretty much everything except public footpaths which are for pedestrians only. The worry is, according to friends and relatives in the UK who are regular EMTB riders (being a resident in Germany I only get a chance to ride in the UK on my occasional visits), that the UK government might decide to designate all forms of e-bikes as motor vehicles as a way to regulate the currently illegal and unrestricted electric vehicles masquerading as pedalecs and as knee jerk reaction to the bad publicity surrounding their use in crime and anti-social behavior. In that case EMTBs would only be allowed on the green roads, same as motocross motor bikers and the 4 wheel drive off road brigade. It should be noted that the UK does not currently allow e-scooters to be used outside of private land except for a few city based trial hire schemes on the basis that they need to asses the safety and they don't comply to any current vehicle category. Inevitably there will be new legislation and e-scooters will be categarised and registered as a motor vehicle requiring a number plate, tax, insurance, etc. same as in most other countries in Europe. It would not take much to add pedalec categories covering all e-bikes to that new legislation rather than having them all lumped together as tax free "bicycles", imo. Whether the UK vehicle registration centre in Swansea could handle such a huge new demand is another question but it could be a long time coming.

Very well put, quality post.

 

[sjturner2112]

The S-Works Levo should be banned according to your logic as it has been updated to 850W !?!

bro. it's not my logic it's the rules of E Enduro class that I'm in. and also 750 Watts is the law. I didn't make the law. Manufacturers get away with it because they say nominal wattage is always 750. But legislators are getting wise to that and who knows what will happen in the future.

 

[Powerslider]

...750 Watts is the law.

Can you help us find that legislation? I'd be interested in reading the actual text and who sponsored the bill. Thanks.

 

[Endoguru]

Why do you need “them” to limit your bike’s output? Just limit it yourself.

Because far to many riders will not limit it themselves. They need “them” to do it. I’m 100% for this type of legislation before we lose trail access for true class 1 ebikes.

 

[skizzian]

Can you help us find that legislation? I'd be interested in reading the actual text and who sponsored the bill. Thanks.

I think it's Federal Regulation

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

 

[zaskarmark]

OK I'm all done with this MAGA patsy who just can't keep his pecker in his pants. The ignore is a great thing.

Thank you... sometimes the obvious needs to be stated for those less observant.

 

[Powerslider]

I think it's Federal Regulation

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

View attachment 186734

Exactly. All your showing is a definition that’s contained in a regulation. I’m looking for a legal statute to support your contention that selling a >750W bike is illegal. Hint-you’re not going to find it. Maybe you need to brush up on the difference between regulations and laws?

 

[Powerslider]

Thank you... sometimes the obvious needs to be stated for those less observant.

The irony here is fun.

 

[skizzian]

All your showing is a definition that’s contained in a regulation. I’m looking for a legal statute to support your contention that possessing a >750W bike is illegal to possess. Hint-you’re not going to find it. Perhaps “illegal” isn’t the word you’re looking for?

well I would imagine Federal regulations would generally overrule local legal Statutes - as I think they are how statutes are implemented - they are both rules as such - Courts review statutes and regulations for constitutionality and proper authority, and may strike down provisions that exceed statutory authority or conflict with higher law...

not sure what you're on about with the 'illegal' nonsense - are you replying to the right person?

 

[Powerslider]

well I would imagine Federal regulations would generally overrule local legal Statutes - as I think they are how statutes are implemented - they are both rules as such - Courts review statutes and regulations for constitutionality and proper authority, and may strike down provisions that exceed statutory authority or conflict with higher law...

not sure what you're on about with the 'illegal' nonsense - are you replying to the right person?

Responding to the ludicrous assertion that bike companies are legally exposed for selling “illegal” bikes. I’m looking for the legislation to support the statement…knowing there isn’t any. You may find a rule or regulation but that’s a far cry from a law that has passed legislative approval making the act illegal. Still questioning if people grasp the difference. That’s seemingly a source of confusion itself.

 

[skizzian]

Responding to the ludicrous assertion that bike companies are legally exposed for selling “illegal” bikes. I’m looking for the legislation to support the statement…knowing there isn’t any. You may find a rule or regulation but that’s a far cry from a law that has passed legislative approval making the act illegal. Still questioning if people know the difference. That’s seemingly a source of confusion itself.

I personally would imagine that you are allowed to sell over 750W as long as you state the correct class.

looking into Federal Regulations a bit deeper :
'Federal regulations in 16 CFR Part 1512 are fully enforceable within the U.S., and manufacturers, importers, and distributors are legally obligated to adhere to them.
All bicycles sold in the U.S. markets that fall within its scope must comply with the standards. Noncompliance can lead to prohibition of sale, mandatory recalls, civil penalties, and other enforcement actions by the CPSC.'
Legislative approval:
Pub. L. 107-319 (116 Stat. 2776), as well as earlier statutes codified in the Statutes at Large (74 Stat. 372, 374, 375; 80 Stat. 1304–05; 83 Stat. 187–89), provide the legislative basis for the CPSC’s regulatory authority over bicycles.

 

[Powerslider]

I personally would imagine that you are allowed to sell over 750W as long as you state the correct class.

looking into Federal Regulations a bit deeper :
'Federal regulations in 16 CFR Part 1512 are fully enforceable within the U.S., and manufacturers, importers, and distributors are legally obligated to adhere to them.
All bicycles sold in the U.S. markets that fall within its scope must comply with the standards. Noncompliance can lead to prohibition of sale, mandatory recalls, civil penalties, and other enforcement actions by the CPSC.'
Legislative approval:
Pub. L. 107-319 (116 Stat. 2776), as well as earlier statutes codified in the Statutes at Large (74 Stat. 372, 374, 375; 80 Stat. 1304–05; 83 Stat. 187–89), provide the legislative basis for the CPSC’s regulatory authority over bicycles.

First, I agree with your post. This isn't a rebuttal but a further clarification; and an example of the difference between regulation/rules and law that has been through the legislative process.

I don't smoke, but my apartment complex bans smoking anywhere on the property. People who smoke literally need to step off the property to smoke. If you fail to leave the property while smoking you're subject to fines, being banned from common areas (pool, gym, etc.), you can even be evicted. However you're not breaking any laws by smoking on the property. There is no legislation you're violating; you're simply violating rules/regulations. I'm not legally exposed; i'm only exposed to the weight of the regulation. Huge difference.

There's possibly legislation empowering property owners to set rules/regulations but that's not at all the same as saying the rules/regulations themselves are laws.

 

[KleineAnfange]

First, I agree with your post. This isn't a rebuttal but a further clarification; and an example of the difference between regulation/rules and law that has been through the legislative process.

I don't smoke, but my apartment complex bans smoking anywhere on the property. People who smoke literally need to step off the property to smoke. If you fail to leave the property while smoking you're subject to fines, being banned from common areas (pool, gym, etc.), you can even be evicted. However you're not breaking any laws by smoking on the property. There is no legislation you're violating; you're simply violating rules/regulations. I'm not legally exposed; i'm only exposed to the weight of the regulation. Huge difference.

There's possibly legislation empowering property owners to set rules/regulations but that's not at all the same as saying the rules/regulations themselves are laws.

Within the executive branch (note the branch with police powers) rules and regulations are treated as law.

 

[Moderator]

A general reminder to everyone, no politics on the forum please.

We realise with this thread there will be some conversation breaching that to a degree, but please don't use that as an excuse to just start discussing politics !

Thanks.