“E-bikes are not illegal”: BBC hit with more complaints about “misleading and damaging” Panorama e-bike episode, as cycle shop owner says: “Finding a wolf in sheep’s clothing should not be a reason to attack sheep”

That, and the idea that motorists keep below the 20mph limit stretches credulity...

I don't need speed, but more torque. Steep hills mean 250W motors don't cut it. I'm considering CYC Stealth at 980W limited with a Cycle Analyst. I don't think I'll be that fast with my weight and a trailer.

Torque and power are not the same thing. You can have unlimited torque at any given power - you just need to adjust the gearing to achieve it.

Agreed - but no doubt the motors (or - certainly if the in-hub type - their mountings) have some limits?

AFAIK deraillieur gears should be OK (along with frame - should already be sturdier if an EAPC).  My Shimano hub gear has a range of "within spec" input ratios however, to avoid putting too much force through the locking pawls and other tiny parts inside the system (mine's on a non-power-assisted bike, not that it matters).

Even in the UK where "but we have hills" the current EAPCs will work very well for the vast majority of folks.  Because most people (and most short journeys that future cyclists are likely to cycle) are in urban areas which tend to be relatively flat or not have prolonged climbs at high gradients.  I stay in Edinburgh - I can easily find some steep gradients if I want to but there are almost no journeys which require tackling them - there are flatter alternatives.

(Only ones I can think of in North / West Edinburgh which might constitute a "route" might be Drum Brae North or Clermiston Road - but these can be avoided albeit at the price of going half as far again (just over half a mile).  And the NCN pull up Scotland Street from Cannonmills to Queen Street - but not quite as steep).

I completely agree, even though I narrowly escaped death ( probably) in new York as there are thousands of lunatics on them. But for Europe and the UK where road bikes especially average over the 25 kph, that small rise to 32 kph might have the effect of attracting a lot of cyclists to assisted bikes, me included!

It might attract a lot of "cyclists" (e.g. the tiny fraction who already cycle for transport, plus maybe a few extra brave young crims things).

It will not attract a lot of people who now drive (the major transport mode beyond walking very short distances).  Because for years they've been able to have quite capable electrically assisted pedal cycles, power-assisted up to 15.5mph anyway.

It will likely continue to piss off / scare people who are walking or wheeling and possibly some who are cycling without power assist (if little Johnny is going 8mph how will he/his mum feel when someone steams past at 18+?).

The above two are of course not so much to do with the properties of e-bicycles / low powered electric motorbikes.  They are a consequence of the domination - by motoring - of public space, bureaucratic planning and regulation, the market and ultimately people's mental lists of "what we can do and with what tools".

Without changing that, all that happens is about the same number of cyclists can get to the next traffic light a bit faster, but are still experiencing fear and indeed casualties from motor traffic (and possibly slightly greater injuries from coming off at higher speeds).

People in the UK commonly report that "safety" is a major concern (e.g. not feeling safe around cars).  I'm pretty confident that "now going faster with cars revving behind me" won't fix that.  I don't think "going a bit faster with power" fixes "cycling is not convenient" either.

What would help to attract lots of new people to cycling is ... well, a whole range of measures *.  Without doing that?  Lots of cyclists are going to be avoiding the traffic on our "shared use" spaces - which are often rubbish e.g. where a council has just stuck a sign on an existing narrow footway.  (If not just cycling on footways).

* Won't be easy - we need to provide genuine alternatives to driving at the same time as we reduce convenience for drivers.  The first would be seriously improving public transport and building cycle parking (home and destinations) and infra (both have to be convenient relative to driving that journey). The latter - limiting permeability of residential areas to drivers (access-only, LTNs etc) and redirecting through-traffic away from town centres.

On infra - we need to address junction design [a] , separate the motor vehicles from cyclists where speeds are above say 20mph and seriously reduce the numbers of motor vehicles in places it's appropriate to have lower speed limits (residential areas) [1] [2] [3].

Sadly the cost of national separate cycle infrastructure is huge so will never happen. It's taken decades in the bravest country, Finland, to make it happen in a road network of little complexity and legacy when compared to the UK.

The best fix is to reduce the danger of shared use of the public highway by changing attitude and behaviour of motor vehicle operators. Starting by making cycling a Protected Characteristic to use existing law on the mainstream media.

Then joined up government between the Ministries of Transport, Health, Culture Media and Sport will focus on Vision Zero to address the attitudes and behaviour required to achieve zero casualties.

It won't be easy as people but change is going to happen.

lonpfrb wrote:

Sadly the cost of national separate cycle infrastructure is huge so will never happen. It's taken decades in the bravest country, Finland, to make it happen in a road network of little complexity and legacy when compared to the UK.

Not disagreeing about the general scale of the transformation *.  And whatever happens we will need to deal with at least some junctions - which will immediately create "conflict" (there's no "just build stuff out of sight, which doesn't trouble drivers in any way).

And in the UK countryside this may be a bit of a lost cause - at least initially.  Albeit it's just not likely that most people will cycle the longer distances anyway.

BUT ... I think people may overestimate what can be done more locally - within urban areas.  That does not necessarily require a lot of new "cycle infra" beside all roads, but transforming old patterns of "everywhere permeable" motor access (and letting the cyclists through).  See articles here and here.

That is exactly the kind of thing which has happened - in many places.  Out of nothing - Seville, but it's in motion in Paris, Oulu, Oslo ...

Attitudes need to change, but I suspect that is just a part of the process - because apparently "careful and competent" drivers kill people every day, because they are human.  This is where the "Sustainable Safety" philosphy and principles come in (human factors, essentially).

* To actually effect more than a couple of % change will require far more than just "cycle infra".  For one there won't be space for if we continue to allocate almost all of it for motoring, squeezing in some footways with what's left and adding the odd couple of pedestrianised streets as a sop to motoring-afflicted "high streets" (and internet - which needs delivery fleets...). For another it will stall at at a low level without a massive improvement in public transport.  BUT - the crucial one is that "where driving is easy, Brits drive".  The relative convenience of motoring compared to other modes must fall, otherwise people just won't bother.

best fix is to reduce the danger of shared use of the public highway by changing attitude and behaviour of motor vehicle operators
Unfortunately, the attitude of the police (sod the cyclists, it's their own fault!) operates in direct and determined opposition to any such 'fix', and to active non-motorised travel.

Owing to the distributed organisation of the police services it varies hugely. I'm sorry that Lancashire are so bad, and I'm fortunate that Kent are better.
This suggests that Vision Zero will require commitment from Police Commissioners and Chief Constables across the country.
I'd prefer them to start by restoring the Traffic Division focusing on road policing.
TD would be the obvious specialists to change attitudes and behaviours on the public highway.

You know that on an EPAC you still have to put effort in, right?
In order to stay at 25kph, you have to put the relevant effort in so the motor maintains 25kph.
As soon as you slacken off, the motor reduces its output accordingly ... it doesn't keep you at 25kph.
[Or at least the Bosch Powerline and the Polini that I have, work like that].
The magic word is *Assistance* ... otherwise, its a moped.

At last - someone who actually knows what an e-bike is and how it works. 
 

But is there any restriction on the multiplier? I get the sense that on some EAPCs the pedals basically act as a dead man's switch - if you stop rotating them the motor cuts out, but you don't actually need to put any effort through them. In some there is not even a mechanical link - the pedals supposedly charge the battery, which powers the drivetrain independently.

Pretty sure that still complies with the law (and no problem with that either). The problem comes where it is combined with demands for ever increasing power - even if assisted speed remains limited to 25kph. At that point we open the door to road-train cargo behemoths under guise of being, essentially, bicycles.

I have a 750W Bafang.  At power level 1 of 9 I can do 25km/h on the flat with my legs just going through the motions.  

diggler wrote:

They don't need new laws. They just need to enforce the laws they already have. If anything the laws need to be loosened. Why is the speed limited to 25 km per hour but in North America it is 32 km per hour?

My gut feeling when I hear calls like this is that the proposers want all the speed & convenience of a motorbike, but without any of the hassle & responsibility that comes with it. An EPAC is an electrically assisted bicycle, a 32kph machine is a pedal assisted motorbike, and that's a big difference. By all means call for new classification but expect to need a licence, helmet, insurance and all the crap the average Daily Mail reader calls for.

Spot on. The arguments are always muddied by people advancing whatever laudable case for more performant machines to be allowed. Of course, they almost always are already allowed. What these people are asking for is for those more powerful machines - motorbikes, mopeds, sub-cars, etc - to be de-regulated. But if they framed the argument in that way nobody would give them the time of day.

And the motive power being electric rather than fossil is just a red herring. But it serves to smuggle their argument into the domain of EAPCs.

And you can in fact legally ride a "speed pedelec" in the UK.  It's just that it involves a lot of extra regulatory legwork, plus legally you are a moped rider and have to comply with the same rules. (road.cc's sister site did this a couple of years back).

I am probably a dinosaur on this (lots of companies are motivated to lobby to make it different!) but just because some European countries * have this doesn't make it a good idea for the UK, where we don't even have mass cycling / cycling as mainstream transport yet!  (Perhaps quietly in parts of Cambridge, or maybe just in bits of London?)

Places like NL have been wrestling with their historic situation of "motor scooters on the cycle path".  If they decide at national level this is no longer on I don't think even they would be well-advised to simply swap those for electric ones.  But they are in a completely different transport situation from the UK!

* Let's not invoke the US - they mostly have "what not to do" lessons for us on road safety / vulnerable road users / nicer places etc.

chrisonabike wrote:

And you can in fact legally ride a "speed pedelec" in the UK.  It's just that it involves a lot of extra regulatory legwork, plus legally you are a moped rider and have to comply with the same rules.

Perhaps we as cyclist ought to stop calling them 'speed pedelec' or similar and call them what they are, electric mopeds. Chiles's program would have been completely different if he'd been using the term electric moped instead.

Nope, nothing to do with performance, everything to do with safety by keeping up in 20mph zones. Obviously doesn't help with 30mph or more, but does support the Active Travel initiative that provides much of the 20mph network.

a licence, helmet, insurance and all the crap the average Daily Mail reader calls for

Including the Mail Grail: the number plate which ensures that all vehicles so equipped are driven carefully with due regard for the law. Unfortunately, to accompany these Brave New World bikes and regulations we'll still have the 'sod that for a lark' Idle Old World police, so the great majority would remain without licence, insurance, helmet and plate and with mask and hoodie, more power and sold on the promise of even easier hackability, all charging around ruining the meagre cycle infa we have. No, thanks.

Nonsense. The difference is just to achieve the 20mph that is so prevalent being safer than MGIF stupidity caused by 15.5mph restriction. Whilst 20mph is glacial slow for motor vehicles the difference to pedestrians with 15.5mph is within their margin of error I.e. they can't tell the difference. Further it's nothing like unrestricted electric motorcycles, so all the Daily Fail bingo doesn't apply.

lonpfrb wrote:

Nonsense. The difference is just to achieve the 20mph that is so prevalent being safer than MGIF stupidity caused by 15.5mph restriction. Whilst 20mph is glacial slow for motor vehicles the difference to pedestrians with 15.5mph is within their margin of error I.e. they can't tell the difference.

I don't expect UK pedestrians will be happy with mingling with increasing numbers of cyclists actually going someplace ... well, ever.

I don't think mixing modes is ever a "great" idea.  It's workable or tolerable in some cases.  Even in NL - on "routes" mixing is avoided  *.

While I can't say for sure if going at 20mph will make some existing cyclists feel safer I'm very confident it won't make them all feel safer.  Nor will it stop MGIF (even where 20mph is the limit) ... because it doesn't now when cyclists are riding fast!

I am certain it won't lead to many more current non-cyclists (e.g. drivers, motor transport users) cycling though.  Fundamentally people don't enjoy mixing with volumes of motor traffic.  And going at 20mph rather than 15.5mph isn't really attractive when many people have already got a car, which goes up to whatever you like, sat right there.  (Which you can just drive to your destination, park and lock etc. etc.)

* The exceptions are worthy of note.  In the countryside - where there are few cyclists and likely very few people walking - the Dutch build ... cycle paths only!  In urban centres where numbers of pedestrians will dominate it isn't a problem (mostly...) because a) most cyclists are just coming or going from that "destination" and b) it doesn't make sense to try and speed through on a bike.  (Noting that of course in NL there is a cycling network - there will normally be more efficient through routes close by).

If the speed and volume of motor traffic is seriously reduced AND motorists accept that people cycling on streets are there by right, sharing there is workable also.

There are never absolute results just improvements and it's a long journey. Coming from London, where C2W makes cyclists pervasive, to the countryside, I noticed so many clueless drivers, and suspect the data says that more cyclists make cycling safer. So every improvement builds critical mass for safety.

Partly agree - and the great thing with cycling is it can be "a little here, a bit more there" - it's local so it could still flourish in just a region, or a city!

I think the notion of "safety in numbers" in terms of cycling safety vs. drivers is best explained in some separate terms.  So "skin in the game" for motorists (e.g. knowing those cyclists could include your family and friends), "understanding" (e.g. you cycle yourself so have "intuition") and "exposure / continual training" (you don't have to remind yourself to "look for cyclists" - you're constantly being reminded because each day you see people cycling everywhere).

Not to be "defeatist" - BUT the thing with "critical mass" is that there may be a line (well lines) which need to be crossed before certain changes occur.  And I do think that some of these "adds a few cyclists" interventions - even added together - simply won't ever create that critical mass in the UK to leap to a different level.

Look at how many "encouraging cycling" (training, campaigns) or even actual infra interventions were made in the past.  Cycling Demonstration Towns, the National Cycling Strategy (and others going back in time).  Now it may be debatable how "genuine" the intention was to change things or whether enough resources were used.  But little or nothing remains of those in terms of cycling modal share levels (I hope I'm wrong for some?).

While support * remains intermittent, or at a level 100 times smaller or more than the "road budget", or something which is entirely "opt in" with no consequences for not engaging ... and ultimately while we don't actively choose to make driving less attractive - changes will only even be measured in increases of a few percent, and will not be sustained (there are always political crises which will pull "spare" money away).

Parts of London are looking a bit better than this.  Maybe a special case as (by fiat) motoring has already been reduced in dominance as a mode and public transport can be good?

* Really political will - support at national, civil service and council / regional levels.  But as a proxy this can probably be measured in funding?

The laws in the US vary by state. It isn't 32km/h everywhere.

open_roads wrote:

There's a lot of focus on Panorama which is a bit nebulous.

Adrian Chiles is an extremely highly paid journalist so why isn't he being held accountable for seemingly failing to understand very basic legal concepts and presenting them accordingly / with appropriate balance?

Because Chiles is, I imagine, just the face.  He wouldn't have had any input on the words he is speaking.

He's a journalist. The journalist presenter always gets input on Panorama - that's the whole point of it.

OK, didn't know that <shrug>