UK Police seize & destroy legal e-bike
- Thread starter Maxi
- Start date
@Powerslider It's because of things like this that Police in the UK are cracking down on eMotos and derestricted eBikes:
Unfortunately "eBike" is catch all term.
Unfortunately "eBike" is catch all term.
Last edited:
one life gone, one life ruined
these wannabe gangsters with their Surrons and balaclava's - it's almost pitiful
if you rode your horse looking like that 200 years ago you were a highwayman, the gallows was waiting.
pagheca
Active member
The police are always looking for innovative enforcement methods.an update: charges dropped, bike will be reimbursed and they will stop using that dumb “test”
Police to stop using “bogus” e-bike speed test as charges against delivery cyclist who had £6,000 cargo bike seized and destroyed are dropped | electric bike reviews, buying advice and news - ebiketips
West Midlands Police is exploring alternative methods of spotting illegal e-motorbike use after the force apologised for seizing and destroying a legal e-cargo bike hired by a delivery cyclist as part of a council-funded scheme.The charges against the cyclist, which West Midlands Police...road.cc
Their latest one seems to be throwing the e-bike off a 30-meter or more cliff: if it exceeds 25.001 km/h during the fall it's immediately declared "non-compliant". The improvement of this method is that the bike's destruction takes place just a few tenths of a second after the non-compliancy declaration, but even more astonishing are the preliminary statistics: so far, 100% of the e-bikes tested have reached speeds of more than 80 km/h during the test.
Last edited:
I’m interested in learning who you think I’m lobbing a dig towards. There was no attack towards anyone here. Don’t manufacture one in my name. Speak for yourself instead of imputing my motives.
My point is regarding the severity of the penalty, and not if there should or should not be a penalty.
I've a lot more to say on this topic, without offending, without pointing fingers, without politics, and without speculation.
There's one member on here that seems to be full of personal attacks, virtue signalling, threatening behaviour and debate censorship.
You know who you are.......
There's one member on here that seems to be full of personal attacks, virtue signalling, threatening behaviour and debate censorship.
You know who you are.......
For reference, maximum fines for Arizona motor vehicle offenses (first offense):
Driving w/o a license: $750
Driving w/o registration: $300
Driving w/o insurance: $500
Total: $1550
The above fee schedule is my baseline for when I say I feel destroying a $3000-$12,000 e-bike for the same offenses is disproportionate. More so when you know you’re not necessarily going to get fined the maximum for multiple simultaneous violations.
This isn’t a call for no enforcement/penalties; only ones that are more proportional to the violations.
Driving w/o a license: $750
Driving w/o registration: $300
Driving w/o insurance: $500
Total: $1550
The above fee schedule is my baseline for when I say I feel destroying a $3000-$12,000 e-bike for the same offenses is disproportionate. More so when you know you’re not necessarily going to get fined the maximum for multiple simultaneous violations.
This isn’t a call for no enforcement/penalties; only ones that are more proportional to the violations.
Obviously you should make a visit to the West Midlands (which is over 5,000 miles from Arizona) to advise the police and us ignorant limeys of the error of our ways.
Joecrow
Active member
Yes and also inform them about the proportionality of Arizona's death penalty!Obviously you should make a visit to the West Midlands (which is over 5,000 miles from Arizona) to advise the police and us ignorant limeys of the error of our ways.
TheKaiser
Active member
Yeah, that contrast with motor vehicle deaths always comes to the front of my mind too, whenever we hear some politician or commentator saying the classic "if it saves just one life, it will be worth it".One of the local politicians said "we have to stop this [illegal ebikes] before someone is killed " , my answer to that was " dont you need to stop cars before 10 millionth person is killed "
Wanting to save a life is a noble sentiment, but the obvious practical difficulties and untenable compromises of codifying that sentiment in an attempt to stop all manner of things that could, in theory, result in a death, seems to escape some people.
Clearly, society has determined that the convenience of cars is worth the direct cost to human life (roughly 40k annually here in the USA), and the same sort of cost/benefit analysis should be applied evenly, without double standards, to other categories.
Quality conflation of two different issues.
The difference in modern life is that motor vehicles are largely a necessity whereas so-called e-Bikes are largely a convenience and often leisure object.
There is certainly an issue of unregistered often non-type approved ebikes, or if you like mopeds and motorcycles being used on the roads across the UK.
I’ve just seen a clip on the X of what I am led to believe is the Metpolice (London) doing road side checks using a dyno-meter. They have a large truck with quite a number of confiscated ebikes tied down on it, with presumably many more to add!
It is suggested offenders are prosecuted and their bikes confiscated. Hopefully we’ll start to see more of this across the country.
Though having said that, such bikes though often a nuisance are still a minor issue compared to the 30,000 UK KSI figure (Killed and seriously injured) on our roads.
I suspect there is also an education issue. I see quite a number of e-scooters and clearly non-bicycle ebikes being ridden about my town, and the impression I get is that the riders have either no idea that they are breaking the law, or little understanding of the potential serious nature of the offence.
I’ve just seen a clip on the X of what I am led to believe is the Metpolice (London) doing road side checks using a dyno-meter. They have a large truck with quite a number of confiscated ebikes tied down on it, with presumably many more to add!
It is suggested offenders are prosecuted and their bikes confiscated. Hopefully we’ll start to see more of this across the country.
Though having said that, such bikes though often a nuisance are still a minor issue compared to the 30,000 UK KSI figure (Killed and seriously injured) on our roads.
I suspect there is also an education issue. I see quite a number of e-scooters and clearly non-bicycle ebikes being ridden about my town, and the impression I get is that the riders have either no idea that they are breaking the law, or little understanding of the potential serious nature of the offence.
Just like that I've found some more info;
news.met.police.uk
Met seize record 2,500 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters this year
Over 4,500 have been seized since the beginning of 2025.
news.met.police.uk
Those of us that ride bicycles that fully conform to the EPAC regulations have a role to play by correcting the media, politicians and even the police whenever possible ( eg in media comment sections) . I understand why the term "ebike" has become virtually universal, but in law (at least UK law) there is no such vehicle. Continued use of term is what has led to the conflation of EPACs (bicycles) , with a variety of illegal variants.
Yesterday I saw an article of UK police using a dynometer ( portable rolling road type device) to test a bike.........they need not have bothered.....when tested on the dyno the police officer just used the throttle!
I think it is more an issue that the bicycle industry needs to address. Ebike is a generic term that the bicycle industry had adopted, ebikes are vehicles but you are correct in saying that they are not defined in law.
I can’t help but think the industry should adopt the term e-bicycle and lobby the government to make it a legal term describing EAPC. I don’t think we’re ever gonna get the public and the press to adopt and understand EAPC, but e-bicycle could be a simple easy to understand designated term for EAPC.
I don’t know what the dyno test involves. But obviously one test would be to determine whether a bike is throttle operated or not. After that I’m thinking checking cut out assist if the bike has pedals. Measuring actual power output could be potentially be troublesome.
dave_uk
Active member
a quick check can be found by flipping the bike over, a sticker on the underside of the frame shows max speed, as here 25km/h:
(no telling if it has been de-restricted though)
(no telling if it has been de-restricted though)
Now the police have backed down, it gives an unsatisfactory end to this, as it raises a lot of questions, and answers none. This should have gone to court as a test case.
What was the back story? Was the rider riding obviously way above the 15.5 limit? Did the rider refuse to stop? Was the rider abusive and / or told lies? How much training had the police had? Did the police knowingly perform a flawed test so they could easily nick the rider, possibly as the bike was actually modified? Why were the police very quick to destroy the bike (evidence)? Did the police actually destroy the bike, or just said they had, to block further independent investigation? (Normally seized items are stored for a significant time before destruction or auction)
As a twist to this is, the test the police performed can be used to find out if a bike cuts out at 15.5mph simply by thoroughly understanding how EPACs work, and carefully listening and feeling for the motor cutting in and out. (It's really easy to do on my Levo) The ham fisted way the police actually performed the test was designed to get the highest speed reading possible, to photograph as evidence. The test if done correctly is only a guide, and would never stand up in court, as it would need to be repeated using calibrated equipment, just like speed guns and intoximeters are.
What was the back story? Was the rider riding obviously way above the 15.5 limit? Did the rider refuse to stop? Was the rider abusive and / or told lies? How much training had the police had? Did the police knowingly perform a flawed test so they could easily nick the rider, possibly as the bike was actually modified? Why were the police very quick to destroy the bike (evidence)? Did the police actually destroy the bike, or just said they had, to block further independent investigation? (Normally seized items are stored for a significant time before destruction or auction)
As a twist to this is, the test the police performed can be used to find out if a bike cuts out at 15.5mph simply by thoroughly understanding how EPACs work, and carefully listening and feeling for the motor cutting in and out. (It's really easy to do on my Levo) The ham fisted way the police actually performed the test was designed to get the highest speed reading possible, to photograph as evidence. The test if done correctly is only a guide, and would never stand up in court, as it would need to be repeated using calibrated equipment, just like speed guns and intoximeters are.
Madmountainman
Member
The problem is having to go to court to fight this. For your everyday, ordinary, hard working citizen of the UK, you're looking at legal costs around £10k to start.
Bike Gorilla
Active member
What needs to happen is to stop the root cause of all of this and ban the sale of the throttle Ebike conversions and Surrons , all sold under the guise of “to be used on private land”. Catch the chavs that have them now and ban the sale of anything not street legal. It is as simple as that.
When high street retailers are selling these, marketing them as having up to 47 miles range, regenerative braking, cruise control, lights, brake lights ets etc. Ok, there is a warning on the top of the page, but the rest of the page is marketing them as fine to use in public spaces. Not even the King has an estate big enough to need 47 miles range! If you're riding on private land, why would you need a 15.5mph speed limiter, and a brake light? Massive mixed messages pushed by so called trusted retailers.
You don't go to a motorcycle shop, and see motocross bikes marketed as personal transport, and if they were, there would be a massive public outcry, so why are illegal e-scooters allowed to be marketed in this way? Funny twist is, you can get a motocross bike legal to ride on the road.
You can also get any illegal ebike legal in the same way as a crosser.
They won't ban the sale of 'not road legal' ebikes. Never gonna happen. Same as it won't with crossers. All the trading standards will do is go after the vendors that aren't making the 'not for road use' point clear.
After that, it's all down to the po-po to go after the scumbags, using a proper, calibrated portable dyno to test. Anything else is pointless/challengeable as has been shown.
Yes, we don't have enough police/trading standards to deal with this pandoras box that has been opened.
I can only pray that the other available option isn't invoked - the ban of all powered cycles.
Make vendors jointly liable for any offences committed by the purchasers of illegal e-bikes… (clearly those related to the unlicensed use, traffic offences or injury). Allow injured parties to seek damages from vendors as they are likely to have sufficient resources to fund any claims + allow insurers to pursue them as well.
What I (truly) don't understand is how this mistake happened at all. Doesn't the accused get their day in court in the UK? Seems like law enforcement went straight from accusation to the penalty stage without allowing the accused to argue their case before a neutral arbiter.
Maybe my understanding of the timeline is flawed?
If you understood UK law you would understand how this mistake occurred.
Yeah I’m surprised that a major retailer like Halfords are selling these things. Where there’s clearly a market and use for off road Surrons etc, I’m struggling with the idea of an e-scooter being particularly useful on private land etc.
As to whether e-scooters should or should not be legal – well that’s another debate. But right now, apart from a few hire trials as far as I am aware they are not legal on the road or in public spaces across the UK.
Retail does seem to be a bit of a mess.
You can’t peruse or hold somebody to account for something they didn’t do.
Maybe my understanding of the timeline is flawed?
Apparently, they had charged the rider and intended to prosecute. The rider was supported by Cycling UK through their Cyclists Defence Fund. So obviously the police have backed down.
I don’t understand how the bike came to be destroyed. You would think that process would be undertaken with great care. That those destroying a bike would be trained to be able top identify what is legal, safe etc.
Police decision to destroy legal e-bike on loan challenged as Cyclists’ Defence Fund turns 25 | Cycling UK
A case involving the destruction of a legal e-bike has highlighted concerns about how e-bikes are identified and assessed. Cycling UK's Cyclists' Defence Fund is supporting the rider while calling for better guidance and training
www.cyclinguk.org
You’re touching on my point. How does law enforcement invoke the penalty (of destroying the accused’s property) before prosecution? Everyone is focused on the the misunderstanding of the bike, but it looks to me as the bigger problem is the penalty being imposed before the accused is proven guilty.Yeah I’m surprised that a major retailer like Halfords are selling these things. Where there’s clearly a market and use for off road Surrons etc, I’m struggling with the idea of an e-scooter being particularly useful on private land etc.
As to whether e-scooters should or should not be legal – well that’s another debate. But right now, apart from a few hire trials as far as I am aware they are not legal on the road or in public spaces across the UK.
Retail does seem to be a bit of a mess.
You can’t peruse or hold somebody to account for something they didn’t do.
Maybe my understanding of the timeline is flawed?
Apparently, they had charged the rider and intended to prosecute. The rider was supported by Cycling UK through their Cyclists Defence Fund. So obviously the police have backed down.
I don’t understand how the bike came to be destroyed. You would think that process would be undertaken with great care. That those destroying a bike would be trained to be able top identify what is legal, safe etc.
Police decision to destroy legal e-bike on loan challenged as Cyclists’ Defence Fund turns 25 | Cycling UK
A case involving the destruction of a legal e-bike has highlighted concerns about how e-bikes are identified and assessed. Cycling UK's Cyclists' Defence Fund is supporting the rider while calling for better guidance and training
Joecrow
Active member
Are you just doing a wind up based on the number of similar questions you have posted in this thread???
One last time at least for me here, if you sign on the line admitting you are guilty there is no day in court, you get a fixed fine and maybe other penalties and that is what the guy did. He signed a confession that he had been riding an unrestricted e-bike consequently the bike was destroyed since the rider had admitted it was illegal. Rightly or wrongly that's what happened, the fact or should we say after the fact it turns out the bike was not illegal and the police used an inaccurate means of testing for that is totally beside the point.
Similar Threads
-
Dutch trial of 12mph bike lanes - speed and power limit discussion
- Started by Roughshod
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
-
