Cyclists riding e-bikes in Coventry’s city centre will soon face fines after the council passed a controversial Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) preventing e-bike use in pedestrianised areas, a measure the West Midlands’ Walking and Cycling Commissioner last week slammed as “reckless” and something that will “discourage cycling and penalise responsible cyclists”.
Coventry City Council passed the ban at a meeting yesterday, Coventry Live reports, and it will come into effect in two weeks’ time (20 November), banning e-bikes and e-scooters from being ridden in the city’s pedestrianised areas, including the Upper Precinct, Hertford Street, Broadgate square and most of the lower precinct and Market Way.
Councillors supportive of the move said it was in reaction to people riding “too fast” and making pedestrians “scared for themselves” and for “the safety of their children”. However, the ban has been criticised in some quarters, the West Midlands’ Walking and Cycling Commissioner suggesting it would “bring unintended consequences for active travel overall”, such as risking to “sever” important cycle routes, forcing cyclists onto more dangerous routes.
The ban comes despite the council’s own Director of Transport Colin Knight admitting that “ideally we would have” provided a “clearly defined network of paths that are suitable for cyclists” before banning e-bike riders from a large section of the city centre.
However, he said, “this is a serious public safety issue so we’ve absolutely got to address that” as well as working to offer “alternative routes” with funding from Active Travel England.
Cllr Abdul Khan who supported the ban said there is a need to stop people riding “too fast”.
“Nothing in this report should be construed by anybody to take the view that we are suggesting in any way that e-scooters are legal, because they’re not,” he said. “I want to also make clear as well that nothing in this report affects the use of any disabled vehicles, and they should be able to be used by disabled people. They have an exemption in those cases.
“But in respect to all of these forms of transport, we’re asking or advising everybody to use them in a manner which does not cause other pedestrians in the centre to be afraid.”
The PSPO offers exemption to those using e-bikes as a mobility aid, campaign group for disabled people cycling Wheels for Wellbeing previously expressing concerns that the ban could disadvantage disabled cyclists and deter them from visiting the city centre.
The council says signs will be put up at pinch points and cycle parking facilities, with delivery riders also to be contacted about the new rules.
Cllr Jim O’Boyle said the council “should not tolerate any dangerous riding or driving of any vehicle of any sort in and around pedestrian areas or our public highway”.
“Unintended consequences”
However, while the new proposal sees the council walk back on its initial plans to ban all cycles from Coventry city centre, Walking and Cycling Commissioner Tranter nevertheless responded to the report last week by arguing that prohibiting the use of e-bikes – and not just illegally modified or non-pedal-assist forms of electric bike – will also “bring unintended consequences for active travel overall”.
“In September 2023, I wrote to Coventry City Council to highlight my concerns that their original proposed amendment to their Public Space Protection Order would discourage cycling and penalise disabled people who use cycles as a mobility aid,” Tranter said in a statement.
“In my role, it is my priority to work to protect pedestrians but I do not feel that the proposed amendment to the PSPO will achieve this and will bring with it many unintended consequences. As a regular visitor on foot to Coventry City Centre, I too know that there are problems particularly relating to the anti-social use of illegally modified e-bikes.
“But throughout this process, I have been clear that the council and police already have the powers to enforce against this as the existing PSPO states that any person cycling or skateboarding must do so in a careful and considerate manner.
“The police have powers to deal with any person riding illegal vehicles, such as e-scooters or powerful e-bikes which do not conform to the Electrically assisted pedal cycle regulations 1983, and which are likely to be the cause of much of the public’s concern.”
He continued: “I am grateful to the council for taking some of my feedback on board as part of the consultation… The exemption from the PSPO of people using standard cycles and those using cycling as a mobility aid is welcome, however, the current recommendation for the approval next week will still ban the use of all e-bikes in the city centre core.
“This week I have again written to the council urging them to amend the draft PSPO wording to only include e-bikes that do not require pedalling to operate and/or have the ability to be electrically assisted to a speed greater than 15.5mph.
“I believe this would achieve the council’s stated objectives and ensure responsible cyclists using EPACs (electrically assisted pedal cycles) are not unduly penalised.”
Despite the suggestion the PSPO, as agreed yesterday, simply states that…
Any person is prohibited from riding, cycling, or using an E-bike or E-scooter, within the protected area shown on the attached map.
Unless: 1. that person has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so; or 2. the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has consented (generally or specifically) to that person failing to do so.
Any person may push and walk alongside their E-bike, or E-scooter through the defined area.
Exemption: Nothing in this order applies to a person who uses a mobility scooter for access reasons or a person who uses an E-bike or E-scooter as a mobility aid and cannot safely dismount and push a cycle for any significant distance, but these persons must use these aids in a careful and considerate manner.
Such PSPOs are nothing new of course, last February cyclists in Bedford staging a protest ride aimed at a “discriminatory” town centre bike ban, while this summer Hammersmith and Fulham Council introduced an e-bike and e-scooter ban along part of the Thames Path.
A pensioner in Grimsby also made headlines when he told the council to stick its £100 fine for cycling in the town centre “up your a***”, saying he would “rather go to prison than give them £100”.
Last month, police in Nuneaton said they had asked the council to introduce a no cycle zone to cut out “really dangerous” cycling and “anti-social behaviour” in the shopping area, saying that “we get a lot of kids wheelie-ing through and it sets the wrong tone”.
63 thoughts on “Latest city introduces anti-cycling rules as controversial e-bike ban brought in”
Quote:
There seems to be this pervasive and persuasive misconception that legal ebikes are faster than normal cycles. It’s sad to see regulation being advanced on this basis.
If there is a perceived problem with “ebikes” going lickety-spit, it is probably due to machines proscribed by law already.
As I said elsewhere but I
As I said elsewhere but I think it’s worth repeating, any cyclist seeing this and thinking so what, I don’t ride an ebike, should see this for what it is, a Trojan horse that can quite easily be exploited to ban all cycling. It would make logical sense, if you ban legal EPACs that can do 15 mph why wouldn’t you ban road bikes that can do 25 mph plus in the right hands?
That’s kind of the point why
That’s kind of the point why EAPCs and cycles are joined together under legislation to begin with. Sauce for one is sauce for the other.
These regs are being pushed on by conflating the scourge of illegal e-motorbikes with legal EAPCs, whether through genuine stupidity or malign mischief.
Basically what they’re trying
Basically what they’re trying to ban is already not legal anywhere (other than private land). This will penalise people who are riding legally, as why would the ones already riding illegally care?
One issue is that they are
One issue is that they are not banning mobility scooters, even though collisions involving mobility scooters are responsible for approximately 10 pedestrian deaths per year, which is more than all types of bicycles.
the little onion wrote:
Well – depends what kind – IIRC there are several classes of these in the UK *. But in general – on the cycle path with them! Having first ensured it’s of a quality that’s fit for purpose. If you can comfortably get a couple of these comfortably past each other (ideally with a bike overtaking) that’s a good starting point.
* FWIW apparently “you cannot drive any type of mobility scooter or powered wheelchair on cycle paths marked ‘cycle only’ “. I can’t recall the last time I saw one of those…
Council unhappy with idiots
Council unhappy with idiots using illegal vehicles throws the baby out with the bath water and bans something legal along with pointlessly banning something already illegal.
The crux of this problem is the same in most towns and cities, teenagers and delivery companies using illegal vehicles, often breaking many parts of the highway code at the same time.
Why penalise law abiding citizens for this?
Shermo wrote:
obviously there’s no use in writing regulations against the ones who don’t abide by the law. I guess by clearing out all the law abiding cyclists it frees up space to avoid the others? I mean, [i]something[/i] had to be done!
Sriracha wrote:
Burglars, motorists who speed, rapists and murderers all walk around in town centres, why don’t we ban pedestrians and remove these law breakers from our town centres!
I bet the thinking went along
I bet the thinking went along the lines of “we cannot tell the difference between a legal ebike and an illegal one, let’s ban them all”. I have a tiny bit of sympathy for this view because nobody who would be enforcing illegal e-bikes can possibly tell at a glance if an ebike is or is not legal. Some are pretty damn obvious, but there a plenty of stealthy illegal bikes too.
https://road.cc/ebiketips
https://road.cc/ebiketips/content/news/bluetooth-could-help-police-spot-e-bikes-hacked-for-higher-speeds-4949
An idea that ebikes should be machine-readable to make it easy for police to spot the wrong ‘uns.
Given how many variations of
Given how many variations of machine there difficult to “catch them all”. Plus no doubt lots of ways of “doing a Volkswagen” e.g. a stealth “hide your capabilities” switch you could activate if rumbled.
However given many criminals can’t be bothered to be smart – one way is shown in this article (BicycleDutch again – larger image here).
Milkfloat wrote:
Equally, there are a lot of ebikes that are difficult to distinguish, on a quick glance, from acoustic bikes. So does that lead to banning all bikes?
What’s “acoustic”got to do
What’s “acoustic”got to do with it? It’s not a guitar for goodness sake! It’s a bicycle, and if it hasn’t got an E-motor it’s simply a “muscle” bike. Okay?
That was the logic identified
That was the logic identified in the submission from the Council Enforcement Officers!
Cllr Abdul Khan who supported
Cllr Abdul Khan who supported the ban said there is a need to stop people riding “too fast”.
Since a normal bicycle can easily exceed the speed at which electric assistance stops on an ebike, the justification for banning ebikes is…….?
Missing.
“But in respect to all of these forms of transport, we’re asking or advising everybody to use them in a manner which does not cause other pedestrians in the centre to be afraid.”
By banning some of them. That isn’t asking or advising people. Do they ban motor vehicles because some people in Coventry use them illegally? No, only bikes, but they definitely aren’t anti-bike. Well, not really. Well, not much. Ok, they are anti-bike.
Sure, there aren’t any
Sure, there aren’t any Chilean extinct/dormant volcanoes between Tile Hill and Walsgrave but [URL=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_St%C3%B6ckl]you can go quite fast without a motor or even pedalling
E-bikes are f*cking up
E-bikes are f*cking up cycling as we knew it, in many different ways, and this is just one example of it.
Traditional cycling has its limitations. It demands a certain amount of physical activity, no matter how leisurly you ride. The distances you can reasonably travel in comfort are limited, as is the amount of cargo (be that groceries, kids or whatever).
Adding assistence seems like a good idea, as it pushes those limits. You can go further, with less trouble, and cargo bikes let you bring loads of cargo.
But it’s a slippery slope, because without the natural limits, they will be pushed further and further and further. And that will have many undesirable consequences.
We will regret it when it’s too late.
Fallacy piled on false
Fallacy piled on false assumption piled on utter stupidity.
Do you propose banning all ebikes in future? FFS ?
And no, I don’t have one BTW.
.
.
You might have a point.
.
Pity you couldn’t make it in a civilised manner.
.
Fallacy, false assumption,
Fallacy, false assumption, stupidity.
If that is the case, surely you can point them out, right? Now it’s just you talking tough.
Also, no, I do not propose banning all ebikes. Don’t put words in my mouth (‘FFS’). I know damn well they are not going away. I’m just voicing my concerns about them.
Sredlums wrote:
Tell me you don’t understand what “pedal assist” means without telling me. I ride around 50 commuting kilometres most days (two roundtrips from Peckham to Fulham): when I take my pedal assist ebike the assistance is on about 20% of the time, mainly on hills and getting away from the traffic lights. 80% of the ride is under my own power. Using the ebike I burn about 900 calories in total; when I take one of my unpowered bikes, I burn about 1300. So I feel like I’m putting in “a certain amount of physical activity”.
Such as more and more people using their cars less and less for commuting, the massive explosion in people using cargo bikes for the school run instead of their cars, more and more companies swapping their polluting delivery vans for cargo bikes. Yes, most undesirable.
Yes, riding an e-bike in its
Yes, riding an e-bike in its legal form requires some physical activity, but you have to be really in denial to not see what is already happening.
E-bikes are getting bigger and heavier, more expensive, more complex, and only have a short lifespan.
The restrictions on the maximum assited speed are easily (and massively) circumvented, and shitloads of very questionable electric bikes from Asia are flooding the market. I’m no slow cyclist, but young kids zip past me as if I am standing still on their ‘fat bikes’, withoiut a care in the world (or the riding skills and/or experience required to ride with those speeds).
Many, if not most, of them don’t even pretend to pedal. Many of them just have a throttle.
That’s not allowed, but it is everyday reality.
Yes, e-bikes have their benefits, I’m just wondering at what price.
Firstly, what’s an Ebike?
Firstly, what’s an Ebike? Nothing exists by that name.
We already have a clear, Europe-wide line drawn in a sensible place – 250W assistance cutting out at 25kph..
Before ebikes there was a
Before ebikes there was a clear, unambiguous and most importantly self-evident demarcation line – the machine was muscle powered. That made it trivially easy to police, and consequently few bothered even to test the boundary.
With ebikes legislation has tried to keep the line just as clear – it still has to be everything a cycle is, with just a little wiggle room introduced on the motive power. Still muscle powered, but with up to 250W assistance to the pedals (so no throttles), up to 25kph. Simple?
No. See off.road.cc for the latest ebike, headline advertised power is over 250W. And this is not some shonky Alibaba special.
See all the mods and chips, the homebrews and lash ups.
See the imported e-motorbikes.
Hear the clamour for a more reasonable power limit on cargo bikes.
And so on.
The point is, what was once simple to police is now a grey area (the 250W limit), difficult to discern (the power is not visible), attractive to those who would bend the rules (they know they can get away with it), and subject to well meaning pressure for more (why shouldn’t I have enough power to carry my kids and shopping?).
I’m not agreeing this is an argument against EAPCs, but neither is it true to say nothing has changed and there are no consequences.
https://road.cc/offroad/content/news/specialized-updates-kenevo-sl-with-12-sl-motor-13769
Regarding the kenevo, it’s
Regarding the kenevo, it’s possible the motor is restricted to 250W when sold in the UK, but the advertising copy is global. Certainly this would appear to apply to the maximum assisted speed – the advertising says 20mph but the User Guide states this varies based on country of purchase.
Even Fazua allows the user to
Even well respected German manufacturer Fazua allows the user to tweak power output above 250W:
https://fazua.com/en/support/help-center/toolbox-software/use-customizer/
The 250W limit seems quite flexible. I haven’t studied the legislation, but I understand 250W is not a hard limit, but something woolly about maximum continuous rated power. The door is definitely open to manufacturers openly flaunting more than 250W.
Sriracha wrote:
Yes, maximum continuous rated power is the maximum average output over (I think) 30 minutes so nothing illegal about a motor that can peak higher than 250W, as long as it can’t run at that peak for 30 minutes without burning out. This makes sense really, as long as the bike is limited to 25 km/h there’s no harm in it being able to provide extra power going up steep hills, for example. The problem is how hard/easy manufacturers make it to bypass the speed limit control, on some bikes (like my Orbea Gain, for example) it’s virtually impossible, on others it’s as simple as putting a smaller wheel size than the actual size into the controller.
My point is, the 250W, it’s
My point is, the 250W, it’s another blurry boundary, because it’s not as clear cut as 250W. There is no realistic way for the limit to be policed, since in fact the bike could put out any power you like over, what, 5 or 10 minutes, so long as it returns to average over 30 minutes.
Yes, I can think of any number of reasons why more power might be useful, convenient etc. But two things – extending the performance of EAPCs well beyond what is possible on a cycle strains the logic behind EAPCs being legislated as ordinary cycles, and it makes them impossible to police, a fact not lost on some elements
There’s something to this,
There’s something to this, but when you say “extending the performance of EAPCs well beyond what is possible on a cycle” I think there quite a few (albeit pro) cyclists who can exceed this!
Is this risking “we can’t tell if x is say 10% over the limit, ergo we can’t tell the difference between a moderate electrical assist and a 200mph electric motorbike” though?
I know clarity is what we seem to want here – especially in a situation which is so obviously prone to “but this one goes up to 11, though…” – but I quite like the more “qualitative” definitions – “no more power than jumping on a tandem with a good racing cyclist”.
Unfortunately we probably can’t have both “common sense” definitions and a big market expansion of e-bikes. Especially when customers are attuned to the kind of sales pitch that eg. car makers put out. “100% more power than you actually understand!”
Sriracha wrote:
That’s why I said, “as long as the bike is limited to 25 km/h”. That’s really what the police should be checking, because you can easily get more than 25 km/h out of a 250W motor with the right setup. The police should be pulling over the people clearly going at 40 km/h, to start with; in the Netherlands the police have treadmill-type checkers that they put the bike on to check its top speed, that would help too.
Sriracha wrote:
The power limit is almost impossible to police without some kind of registration and annual check-up (c.f. MOT). The problem is that even if it’s made difficult for manufacturers to sell more powerful machines, it’s still possible for owners to modify them or de-restrict them and that wouldn’t be easy to detect.
I think the answer is to step up traffic policing and to prosecute those riders that are causing actual problems such as crashes. After an incident, the police can validate the performance of the bike if it’s thought to be illegal, but I’m not even sure that’s worthwhile except in the most extreme collisions.
The power limit is almost
The power limit is almost impossible to police without some kind of registration and annual check-up (c.f. MOT)
Ho! Ho! Even with an ‘annual check-up’, when the police can’t be bothered to do any policing (they don’t have to do much! Just stop ignoring indisputable reports, but they obviously don’t want to ‘get involved’) nothing changes- the bad things keep happening. This is much-reported WU59 UMH on the diversionary route around Garstang Remembrance Day parade this morning. No MOT for 6 1/2 years, no VED for almost 6, recent failed MOT for dangerous defects, owner J Whitaker (Agricultural Services and Groundworks- with Facebook page and a couple of phone numbers) keeps on being supported by Lancashire Constabulary
Are you saying this is like
Are you saying this is like the old joke (from e.g. early days of us making everything include digital electronics) “what do you get if you cross an x (e.g. camera, phone etc.) with a computer? A computer!”
Or “cars spoil everything, including cycling, because as soon as private powered travel becomes the norm everything else will tend towards it”?
Truth there – but isn’t that the inevitable human “what our ancestors termed luxuries, we call necessities”?
Personally I favour the “just use less stuff” approach to solving problems of overconsumption. But this has never been the most popular approach.
Do you have a suggestion for how we might get the undoubted benefits of luring people into walking / cycling* some journeys rather than driving? How to facilitate “micromobility” / “last mile cargo movements” without inevitable vehicle bloat or power/speed escalation? Would that be by legal repression? Taboo? Some kind of cultural focus on demonstrating your “fitness”?
* e.g. with moderate power support – say another person’s worth (part of the reasons for the 250W / 15.5mph choice).
I do wonder about “foreign
I do wonder about “foreign influence” – especially if / once the US seriously gets in on the game, because their standard is 20mph. Currently UK, EU and Australia all favour 15.5mph but will the US – or some other place e.g. the manufactures of China / Taiwan / Malaysia drag everyone upwards?
First of all, I used the term
First of all, I used the term ‘e-bike’, not ‘ebike’, so if you ant to play lame word games, at least do it correct.
It’s a moot point anyway of course, because you know damn well that both of those words are used, and what they mean. (If not: maybe you have heard of a thing called ‘Google’. They have 86 million links for you to educte yourself on your ‘ebikes’, and 1490 million on my ‘e-bikes’).
Secondly, how’s that line drawn in a sensible place working out in the real world? Everybody adhering to it? Easily enforcable by the police? Only quality, safe bikes being brought to the market, without questionable brakes, and batteries bursting in to flames?
mattw wrote:
I fully agree, and believe that more resource should be put into proper enforcement of the existing rules, not bureaucracy and generating new bylaws, BUT the average Civil Enforcement Officer who failed the tests to become a real policeman wouldn’t be able to tell at a glance if the pedelec bicycle infront of them has been delimited or not. So for simplicity’s sake Cov council have decided if you can see a motor, then nope!
I think we must give Coventry
I think we must give Coventry credit for trying more carefully than all the other places with PSPOs that were written by lobotomised sea-slugs.
And I see that Adam Tranter (WM Cycling and Walking Commissioners) has confirmed that pedal cycles are allowed, which is a good.
It remains to be seen whether the Council recognise that pedelecs are pedal cycles by law.
Half a step forward, but some people will be abused / bullied by Council enforcers, and PSPOs still need a root and branch redefintion..
Is there anything that allows
Is there anything that allows them to confiscate illigal ebikes?
It would only take a few weekends and the illigal ebikes would stop going through the centre.
Most illegal ebikes are very easy to spot…not all but most.
The delivery drivers will soon put the word out to each other to NOT go around the city centre.
Pedal those squares wrote:
Of course – they require insurance and on’t have any is the usual one.
This is a police power, and one alleged reason for change is stretched resources.
Pedal those squares wrote:
Yes there is, and the same applies to escooters: in 2021 the Met police confiscated nearly 4000 illegal escooters in London. As you say, it wouldn’t take much to get the message out there that people with illegal machines would be in trouble, unfortunately the police don’t seem to be interested except when involved in specific targeted operations. There’s a Pret A Manger at the end of my road which usually has half a dozen Deliveroo riders waiting outside (as a sidenote, when did we become so lazy as a society that it’s acceptable to pay somebody else to go and get coffee and sandwiches for you?), all with blatantly illegal ebikes with the tell-tale dinnerplate-sized hub motors. Throughout the day police officers stop to pick up coffee and snacks, walking past this display of illegal machines without ever stopping to speak to the riders, let alone confiscate their bikes.
I think the main thing people
I think the main thing people have forgotten they are cycling on pavements so enforce NO cycling for all bikes and not just ebikes. We don’t belong on pavements stick to cycle paths or the road simple. And yes I do ride and commute to work.
Crashb69 wrote:
You’ve grabbed the wrong end of the stick pretty solidly there, this has nothing to do with cycling on pavements, it’s about cycling in pedestrianised areas, i.e. roads that have been closed to motor vehicles. In this case all cyclists were permitted in these areas but now it’s been limited to unpowered only. 100% legal and widely permitted in many areas around the UK.
Ok, for fairness and equality
Ok, for fairness and equality, they should ban all motorised vehicles from the roads in Coventry where there are also expected to be cyclists and pedestrians. Because it is also frightening and a serious safety issue with speeding motorists. If facts were needed to support this, there are far more incidents of motorised vehicles smashing into pedestrians and cyclists than there are e-cyclists smashing into pedestrians.
Here’s a few hot takes from
Here’s a few hot takes from me:
As we go into the “post car” era, the line between what is a taxed, insured, registered (in theory) heavy fast vehicle and a non taxed, non insured light vehicle is going to get blurred.
Things that are at all points between a Citroen Ami and an EPAC are going to proliferate.
Cargo and commuter ebikes will begin to be offered with more weather protection and crash safety kit, making them heavier. In other words, hybrid electric/pedal vehicles will mirror car development.
All of this is basically a good thing that will increase accessibility and reduce congestion, improve air quality and lower cost in the urban transport space.
But the transition period will be difficult and it will no longer be true to simply say “bicycle collisions are of such low mass and speed that they rarely cause injury”.
barbarus wrote:
WHOA! Missed that – what is this? When is that going to happen?
I mean – they’ve been working on reducing motor traffic in the Netherlands for (insert any amount of time but the late 70s was a turning point) years and while cycling is mainstream and they’ve got great integrated public transport they’re certainly nowhere near “post car”.
When I say post car, I mean
When I say post car, I mean that the traditional ICE car in cities is on borrowed time. It might be 50 years, it might be 10. But it will happen.
Well that sounds like “we’re
Well that sounds like “we’re going to have everything fixed by (variable length of time but certainly after I’m no longer in charge and probably when I’m safely dead)”.
Isn’t the traditional ICE car being replaced though – by the radically different electric car?
It’s much more space efficientis so light it does no road damageIthas zero emissionsemits a bit less, elsewhere (apart from particulates from tyres and braking)! It ismuch more pleasant to be aroundisn’t smoky andtotally silentis (possibly worryingly) quiet when starting off but has the same road noise when up to speed.I’m sure the car manufacturers would prefer to go on making the same vehicles, but I don’t think their shareholders are quavering yet.
Hey, I didn’t say what I
Hey, I didn’t say what I would like to see, just what I think will probably happen. But like I said, it’s a hot take, so probably I will be entirely wrong! I have a woeful record of clairvoyance.
I hope I was just debating
I hope I was just debating your prediction, not suggesting you desired a particular outcome. Likely we’re all mistaken – if only because something completely unexpected happens and totally reframes debates.
Given cars have bulked up (some debate about this but even in the last decade it seems there is evidence) I suspect that we’ll see the same with other private transport e.g. bikes – if they become more popular.
As you point out people have been raised on cars which have ever more features (weather protection, “safety” and entertainment, and the bigger motors to shift the greater weight with more feeling of dispatch). Firms will obviously seek to meet (and encourage) these wants, even in another platform. And the firms have grown for generations by selling cars (as has the built environment) so are likely to produce alternatives shaped by them.
In the UK though unless we sort out environments which feel safe and are convenient to cycle in I don’t see much changing. And that process could certainly be done faster in the UK (e.g. we could start!) but is not rapid.
Here’s a taste of the future,
Here’s a taste of the future, if those who argue for an increase in the power and speed limits get their way. E-bike bans will proliferate, as is already happening in USA, where e-bikes are allowed three times as much power up to 20mph. The only way to fight these bans is to stick to our European 250W & 15.5mph limits and encourage rigorous enforcement of them.
Crankwinder wrote:
I find it ironic that one of the smallest and lightest vehicles on the roads are subject to so much power restriction and demand for legislation (likely due to the lack of insurance and registrationi). Even the smallest car has no such power restriction and to my mind the biggest issue is that car drivers can drive without paying any attention to what they are doing, whereas two-wheeled vehicles require a minimum amount of focus to keep your balance.
“You were going quite a speed
“You were going quite a speed sir. We’ll need to check what category of legs you’re licensed to operate.”
Same as bikes – it’s because “in pedestrian space”. And that is only the case because we don’t believe in* space for cycling. Which – just like motor vehicles – needs to be (very clearly) separated from the footway.
What’s that? No, cars drive on the *road* so obviously there aren’t the same concerns … (and we’ve learned to stay out of the way of cars)
EDIT obviously the above is ironic but clearly the thought process for many. Also looks like a balrog has reappeared in some other threads, oh well.
* Or can’t find space / money for it – which actually is the same thing; ultimately these are justifications given for a choice or belief.
hawkinspeter wrote:
“…you may think that the human rider is what keeps a bicycle balanced…”
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/18/what-keeps-a-bicycle-balanced/
How many people have died
How many people have died from ebikes in Coventry versus deaths from cars in Coventry? Any?
Surely all cars should be banned in Coventry to procted pedestrians and cyclists, a main victim of cars. Fair play please.
An example of the
An example of the misunderstanding of the different types of bikes here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-67380021
“Electric motorbikes – or ‘e-bikes'” – a distinction is made later in the article but the headline and opening sentence show the lack of differentiation between legal and illegal that leads to blanket bans such as the one about to be imposed in Coventry.
“Communities want action but
“Communities want action but officers are cautious and aware of the risks.”
“In Cardiff, a [community] riot broke out in May after two teenagers died riding an electric motorbike [following police action]- a Sur-Ron.”
The responsability for and solutions to these problems lie primarily with the parent/s of the offenders. There is no way the kids have access to these machines without their parent’s connivance.
The “communities” must also harbour the knowledge of which families have these bikes, so the police ought not need to play cat and mouse to sieze the machines.
So much to unpack in this
So much to unpack in this article but my main thought was:
How does the word “electric” change anything?
I’ve lived somewhere where for many years there have been kids riding illegally on scrambler bikes. Some of the bikes were also not road legal (no plates), some may have had plates.
There has been at least one death of someone *not on a motorbike* (which doesn’t seem to have been mentioned in the article, though sadly it may happen).
I’ve watched the police have rings run round then on a couple of occasions in the middle of town, and a cyclists’ (unpowered) bike get smashed into.
Nothing new. And – at least in England – I believe police do have powers to physically stop riders, albeit I understand they may be cautious about doing that.
Kids on motorbike is an issue – but how is the electric bike factor more than a buzzword here?
All true – the trouble for
All true – the trouble for cyclists is the (perverse) linkage via the mischievous use of words. Language trammels thought. E-bikes …
chrisonatrike wrote:
I would imagine a significant factor in terms of lawbreakers is the lower maintenance required for an electric motorcycle and especially the fact that it can be refuelled at home rather than the rider being exposed to potential arrest and/or seizure by having to go to, and stop at, a petrol station. I think the proliferation has also been aided by a feeling (quite wrong, of course) amongst the riders and probably their parents that this isn’t really breaking the law like having a petrol motorcycle without a plate, licence or insurance, it’s only really a souped up bicycle.
I’m sure that is a factor. We
I’m sure that is a factor. We may see *more* for the reasons you’ve given.
Also agree that sadly media and popular opinion is quite happy to lump EAPCs and electric motorbikes together, probably a symptom of the whole area being out of government control.
However it was already happening years back in Edinburgh on ICE bikes. As always there is stealing and joyriding of course – but there was a group regularly about breaking any number of laws riding dangerously using scrambler bikes*. A year or so back they even made a few raids into the centre of Edinburgh (another apology, tabloid language…)
Someone owned, maintained and fueled them…
So more “social issue we have had for ages, with newsworthy factor because new power source”?
* sorry – not knowledgeable in motor bikes / they went too fast to get models! Nor of course ages – but a) there were some small riders and b) there were some very young- looking lads hanging about for a go when they did displays on the roads around the neighbourhood…
I see they have changed the
I see they have changed the wording! Headline and opening paragraph now refer to e/motorbikes:
That’s good – maybe the
That’s good – maybe the powers that be at the BBC read road.cc!