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.

 

[pagheca]

(Please read until the end before replying...)

Let’s face it: the concept of freedom is understood in two quite different ways in the US (at least among part of the population) and in much of the rest of the Western world (or at least parts of it).

In the US, freedom is often interpreted as minimizing rules and constraints as much as possible, with a strong emphasis on individual responsibility. In the rest of the West, especially in the EU, it is more often understood as creating the conditions for safety, trust, social fairness, and peaceful coexistence.

When people behave irresponsibly, many in the US tend to think such behaviour should be punished, but not necessarily prevented through regulation. In much of Europe, the prevailing view is that preventing harm is preferable to dealing with its consequences afterward.

If I’m riding on a shared bike and pedestrian path, I would rather not be hit by a speeding cyclist than rely on that person’s sense of responsibility, which is not always something one can assume. In the same way, I’m perfectly fine not being able to buy a semi-automatic AK-47 if that contributes to feeling safer both on the street and at home.

For many Americans, however, the freedom to buy a (semi-automatic) AK-47 is seen as outweighing the collective benefit of stricter public safety measures. Similarly, the right to own an e-MTB capable of speed up to 50 km/h or so can be viewed as taking precedence over regulations designed to reduce the risk of serious injury to pedestrians or children on shared paths.

These are simply two different philosophies of what “freedom” means. Neither side is likely to convince the other, but I would personally prefer these differences to remain largely on their respective sides of the Atlantic.

I say this without any intention of being argumentative, only because this discussion comes up repeatedly, and much of the disagreement stems from these fundamentally different interpretations of freedom. This is, of course, a generalization. On both sides of the Atlantic, as well as in places like Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, there are many people whose views differ significantly from what is often perceived as the dominant or typical mindset.

 

[irie]

(Please read until the end before replying...)

Let’s face it: the concept of freedom is understood in two quite different ways in the US (at least among part of the population) and in much of the rest of the Western world (or at least parts of it).

In the US, freedom is often interpreted as minimizing rules and constraints as much as possible, with a strong emphasis on individual responsibility. In the rest of the West, especially in the EU, it is more often understood as creating the conditions for safety, trust, social fairness, and peaceful coexistence.

When people behave irresponsibly, many in the US tend to think such behaviour should be punished, but not necessarily prevented through regulation. In much of Europe, the prevailing view is that preventing harm is preferable to dealing with its consequences afterward.

If I’m riding on a shared bike and pedestrian path, I would rather not be hit by a speeding cyclist than rely on that person’s sense of responsibility, which is not always something one can assume. In the same way, I’m perfectly fine not being able to buy a semi-automatic AK-47 if that contributes to feeling safer both on the street and at home.

For many Americans, however, the freedom to buy a (semi-automatic) AK-47 is seen as outweighing the collective benefit of stricter public safety measures. Similarly, the right to own an e-MTB capable of speed up to 50 km/h or so can be viewed as taking precedence over regulations designed to reduce the risk of serious injury to pedestrians or children on shared paths.

These are simply two different philosophies of what “freedom” means. Neither side is likely to convince the other, but I would personally prefer these differences to remain largely on their respective sides of the Atlantic.

I say this without any intention of being argumentative, only because this discussion comes up repeatedly, and much of the disagreement stems from these fundamentally different interpretations of freedom. This is, of course, a generalization. On both sides of the Atlantic, as well as in places like Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, there are many people whose views differ significantly from what is often perceived as the dominant or typical mindset.

Let's face it: I have a Trek Rail which is an American (notionally perhaps) bike so logically (?) should I be able to buy an AK-47 to go with it?

Just asking.

 

[skizzian]

Let's face it: I have a Trek Rail which is an American (notionally perhaps) bike so logically (?) should I be able to buy an AK-47 to go with it?

Just asking.

nope
but you can buy a Kalashnikov ebike

 

[Powerslider]

(Please read until the end before replying...)

Let’s face it: the concept of freedom is understood in two quite different ways in the US (at least among part of the population) and in much of the rest of the Western world (or at least parts of it).

In the US, freedom is often interpreted as minimizing rules and constraints as much as possible, with a strong emphasis on individual responsibility. In the rest of the West, especially in the EU, it is more often understood as creating the conditions for safety, trust, social fairness, and peaceful coexistence.

When people behave irresponsibly, many in the US tend to think such behaviour should be punished, but not necessarily prevented through regulation. In much of Europe, the prevailing view is that preventing harm is preferable to dealing with its consequences afterward.

If I’m riding on a shared bike and pedestrian path, I would rather not be hit by a speeding cyclist than rely on that person’s sense of responsibility, which is not always something one can assume. In the same way, I’m perfectly fine not being able to buy a semi-automatic AK-47 if that contributes to feeling safer both on the street and at home.

For many Americans, however, the freedom to buy a (semi-automatic) AK-47 is seen as outweighing the collective benefit of stricter public safety measures. Similarly, the right to own an e-MTB capable of speed up to 50 km/h or so can be viewed as taking precedence over regulations designed to reduce the risk of serious injury to pedestrians or children on shared paths.

These are simply two different philosophies of what “freedom” means. Neither side is likely to convince the other, but I would personally prefer these differences to remain largely on their respective sides of the Atlantic.

I say this without any intention of being argumentative, only because this discussion comes up repeatedly, and much of the disagreement stems from these fundamentally different interpretations of freedom. This is, of course, a generalization. On both sides of the Atlantic, as well as in places like Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, there are many people whose views differ significantly from what is often perceived as the dominant or typical mindset.

I’d phrase the traditional American mindset slightly differently; where we highly value being free from an oppressive government. If anyone knows American history they know our country was literally founded on this concept.

 

[MichiganEMTB]

Bosch is trying so hard... invest and make better products... instead they invested in legislation

 

[irie]

Bosch is trying so hard... invest and make better products... instead they invested in legislation

ITYM that Bosch tries to stay within the bounds of, for example, EU legislation?

 

[skizzian]

of interest to those in the UK
this is the results of a 2024 UK Gov consultation on changing EAPC regulations from 250W continuous rated to 500W (and allowing grip twist to the existing 15.5mph limit)
the changes were not implemented
the interested parties did not seem that interested, horse riders objected to the additional power

Proposed changes to legislation for electrically assisted pedal cycles – outcome

www.gov.uk

an excerpt RE: Power increase
'the risk of conflating e-cycles with other forms of micromobility

• a concern that the police may be less able to distinguish between road legal EAPCs and other vehicles
• that more powerful e-cycles would not be suited to existing active travel infrastructure
• potentially unsafe interaction between more powerful EAPCs and horse riders, as well as broader impacts on the countryside
• risk that UK manufacturers focus and relocate to the European market as a result of British divergence from regulations on e-cycles within the European Union

Among main stakeholders, responses from those opposing the proposal suggested that it was unnecessary and lacked evidence to suggest that the stated aim, making e-cycles more attractive and accessible, would be achieved.

There was also concern that:

• the country could become an outlier when compared to the European market
• the proposal risked exacerbating issues around fire safety, for example as a result of consumers purchasing larger and poorer quality batteries
• there was a potentially increased risk of more frequent and severe collisions due to the increased weight of more powerful EAPCs

Suggestions from main stakeholders towards addressing these risks included:

• greater consumer education
• research to better understand the case for change and to allow manufacturers time to develop, test and produce safer products
• additional regulatory changes, such as limitations on torque and gross weight, of more powerful EAPCs'

 

[E-NUB]

The more I read about regulations and "issues" the more fun those Surron's are sounding to me.. maybe I should get one while I can!!

Issues though? It's really how and where you ride vs what you ride that can actually pose risk to yourself and other's. Cranking down the watts or pedal vs throttle is not the answer unfortunately. eg I can barrel down a steep hill at 35-40mph on a pedal bike. If folks are hiking up, it's going to get dangerous before you can ask if I even have a motor!

My solution proposal:

Build some cool e-moto parks where the Surron kids can roam wild and free. Kind of how skateparks solved the "issue" of kids riding skateboards everywhere when I was growing up. Or like we have shooting ranges for guns to keep target practice in the parking lots down to a minimum.. Even with all the regulations in the world, you just cant stop boneheadery and disregard for others safety.

Side note: My car has a top speed of over 180mph, and it is not illegal funny enough. I race it on a track to go all out and have fun in a safe(r) environment.

 

[Gila Man]

The more I read about regulations and "issues" the more fun those Surron's are sounding to me.. maybe I should get one while I can!!

Issues though? It's really how and where you ride vs what you ride that can actually pose risk to yourself and other's. Cranking down the watts or pedal vs throttle is not the answer unfortunately. eg I can barrel down a steep hill at 35-40mph on a pedal bike. If folks are hiking up, it's going to get dangerous before you can ask if I even have a motor!

My solution proposal:

Build some cool e-moto parks where the Surron kids can roam wild and free. Kind of how skateparks solved the "issue" of kids riding skateboards everywhere when I was growing up. Or like we have shooting ranges for guns to keep target practice in the parking lots down to a minimum.. Even with all the regulations in the world, you just cant stop boneheadery and disregard for others safety.

Side note: My car has a top speed of over 180mph, and it is not illegal funny enough. I race it on a track to go all out and have fun in a safe(r) environment.

Why can’t the e-motos use the existing motocross tracks on practice days or go to the areas that allow off-road vehicles? I had a dirt bike when I was a teen and I didn’t ride in areas that were off limits. If I had, and my parents found out about it, the dirt bike would have been sold and I’d have been given extra chores to help me “understand the rules”. My kids had dirt bikes and they understood the rules very well. Maybe it’s just a parenting problem that’s the real problem.

 

[Powerslider]

of interest to those in the UK
this is the results of a 2024 UK Gov consultation on changing EAPC regulations from 250W continuous rated to 500W (and allowing grip twist to the existing 15.5mph limit)
the changes were not implemented
the interested parties did not seem that interested, horse riders objected to the additional power

Proposed changes to legislation for electrically assisted pedal cycles – outcome

www.gov.uk

an excerpt RE: Power increase
'the risk of conflating e-cycles with other forms of micromobility

• a concern that the police may be less able to distinguish between road legal EAPCs and other vehicles
• that more powerful e-cycles would not be suited to existing active travel infrastructure
• potentially unsafe interaction between more powerful EAPCs and horse riders, as well as broader impacts on the countryside
• risk that UK manufacturers focus and relocate to the European market as a result of British divergence from regulations on e-cycles within the European Union

Among main stakeholders, responses from those opposing the proposal suggested that it was unnecessary and lacked evidence to suggest that the stated aim, making e-cycles more attractive and accessible, would be achieved.

There was also concern that:

• the country could become an outlier when compared to the European market
• the proposal risked exacerbating issues around fire safety, for example as a result of consumers purchasing larger and poorer quality batteries
• there was a potentially increased risk of more frequent and severe collisions due to the increased weight of more powerful EAPCs

Suggestions from main stakeholders towards addressing these risks included:

• greater consumer education
• research to better understand the case for change and to allow manufacturers time to develop, test and produce safer products
• additional regulatory changes, such as limitations on torque and gross weight, of more powerful EAPCs'

Regarding the concerns of becoming an outlier... This aligns closely with my contention that we need to gain as many eMTB riders as possible; as quickly as possible. Popularity brings political capital. Limiting bikes is in opposition to this goal; and ironically threatens trail access more. Bike companies should to stick to their core mission of building the most attractive bikes possible. IMO it's a destructive distraction for bike companies to focus on activism that will dampen enthusiasm for eMTB.

 

[E-NUB]

Regarding the concerns of becoming an outlier... This aligns closely with my contention that we need to gain as many eMTB riders as possible; as quickly as possible. Popularity brings political capital. Limiting bikes is in opposition to this goal; and ironically threatens trail access more. Bike companies should to stick to their core mission of building the most attractive bikes possible. IMO it's a destructive distraction for bike companies to focus on activism that will dampen enthusiasm for eMTB.

The best way to get more folks into emtb???

...MORE POWER!!!