“Cyclists think they can do whatever they want”: Viral video shows moment driver uses bike lane to queue-jump gridlocked traffic; Wout van Aert’s “calculated risk” for classics; DJ Dom Whiting announces first cycling event of 2024 + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Irish cycling great Stephen Roche expected to repay €380,000 as appeal partially upheld over cycle tourism business insolvency
.jpg)
DJ Dom Whiting announces first cycling event of 2024
People of Southampton (and surrounding areas), the DJ behind Drum & Bass On The Bike, Dom Whiting, is coming back to your city this weekend.
> Drum & Bass On The Bike creator is still trying to make sense of it all
Setting off from Guildhall Square at 2pm on Sunday, the event marks a return to Southampton two years on from his last bicycle rave in the city. We sent road.cc Simon along to the London ride last summer to find out what it’s all about and, in his words, “Should the DJ Dom Whiting ever visit a city near you for one of his Drum & Bass on the Bike rides, my advice is that you shouldn’t pass up the chance to pop along…”
This was the scene in Bristol [below], when Whiting returned last April…
“Mind-blowing”… “massive”… “crazy”… “immense”… just a few of the reviews of Dom Whiting’s Drum & Bass on the Bike rides, attracting a crowd of hundreds, estimated to be as many as a thousand by some.
Let’s hope for more of the same come Sunday…
Wout van Aert plots route to classics glory — swaps Strade Bianche and Milan-San Remo for "calculated risk" of three weeks at altitude
[Thomas Maheux/SWpix.com]
For a rider of Wout van Aert’s calibre, a versatile master of all cycling disciplines from sprinting, punchy finishes, cyclocross and time trials, through to truly world class displays on Tour de France mountain stages, to walk away from the sport at the end of an otherwise extraordinarily successful career without a Tour of Flanders title or Paris-Roubaix cobblestone would be unthinkable.
As the leading Belgian classics hope of a generation, that unthinkable hole in his palmares would be even more pronounced, after all he’s won just about everything else.
And yet, at 29 years old, and with 10 (so far) unsuccessful attempts at landing either race, the next five weeks, backed by one of the most dominant and best classics support teams we’ve seen in recent times, while not quite make or break, suddenly seems a crucial chapter in the Van Aert story.
[Zac Williams/SWpix.com]
And so, in a bid to topple eternal rival Mathieu van der Poel — who has won two Flanders crowns and a Roubaix at his expense — Van Aert has outlined his plans for the rest of the classics campaign, taking the bold approach of ditching races he has, in previous years competed at, and won, in favour of taking three weeks at altitude camp in Tenerife to peak in a controlled environment for the big ones — Flanders and Roubaix.
The Visma–Lease a Bike star will now not race again until March 22, having won Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne on Sunday and playing a major part in teammate Jan Tratnik’s victory at Omloop Het Nieuwsblad a day earlier. His next race will be the E3 Saxo Classic, meaning Van Aert will forgo Strade Bianche, a choice of Tirreno-Adriatico or Paris-Nice, and an opening Monument appearance of the season at Milan-San Remo.
“Always staying in the comfort zone is the easiest thing, but the reality is that I haven’t won the Ronde and Roubaix yet,” he told HLN last weekend. “That may not always have had to do with myself, but I did have the feeling that I could be even better during those two weekends than was the case in previous years.”
Tratnik and Tiesj Benoot will join their leader at the altitude camp, Benoot calling the approach a “small calculated risk […] thinking a bit out of the box”.
“If you go on an altitude training camp in February, you will return very well for the opening weekend and Strade Bianche, but the Tour of Flanders will follow more than a month later,” he said.
“By then, the effect of that altitude stimulus in February will still be minimal. I firmly believe in this approach, but you have to sacrifice other races for something you are not actually sure about because it is a step into the unknown, no matter how logical it sounds.”
Time will tell if Van Aert’s “calculated risk” lands him a big one…
Five weeks until Roubaix!
Trechos da @parisroubaix hoje pic.twitter.com/5kk0Xsasid
— O País Do Ciclismo (@opaisdociclismo) February 29, 2024
Just a couple of Israel-Premier Tech lads going for a swim during their recon of the cobbles.
Government considering doubling e-bike motor power but retaining 15mph limit
Our sister site e-bike tips has the full story on the news this morning that the government is to consult on doubling the legal wattage of electric bike motors to 500W. Check out Alex’s story on it, plus the rest of the website for all things e-bike related…
> Government considering doubling e-bike motor power but retaining 15mph limit
Cycling UK: Changing e-cycle regulations to double maximum power to 500 watts a "huge safety risk to pedestrians and others who cycle"
In reaction to a consultation launched today by the Department for Transport on changing e-cycle regulations to double their maximum power from 250 watts to 500 watts and remove the pedal requirement, Cycling UK’s director of external affairs, Sarah McMonagle said in a statement provided to road.cc:
These proposals present a huge safety risk to pedestrians and others who cycle. The dramatically increased power would mean faster acceleration and much heavier bikes, which we’re really concerned about.
E-cycles with no pedal requirement would also reduce the health benefits of e-cycling – in essence, they would blur the line between e-bikes and electric motorbikes.
The government has stated that the proposed changes would make e-cycles more attractive, yet the most commonly cited reason for people not cycling is that they don’t feel safe. E-cycles are also prohibitively expensive for many people. We fully agree with the government’s goal to get more people to enjoy the benefits of e-cycles, but believe the way to do that effectively is to invest in high quality infrastructure and provide financial assistance for those who need it.
Tory MP claims pedicabs have turned parts of London into the "Wild West"
> Tory MP claims pedicabs have turned parts of London into the “Wild West”
London walking and cycling commissioner calls suggestion e-bike power could be doubled "madness" + road.cc reader reaction
Plenty of discussion about this today…
> Government considering doubling e-bike motor power but retaining 15mph limit
We’ve already included Cycling UK’s statement on the live blog this afternoon, the charity saying the idea to double the maximum power of e-bikes to 500 watts would pose a “huge safety risk to pedestrians and others who cycle”.
London’s walking and cycling commissioner Will Norman called the idea “madness”.
“Doubling the power of e-bikes? Making e-bikes full-throttle like motorbikes? This is madness! Why is government doing this? It’ll increase risk of collisions and battery fires. They really should focus on legislation to sort out dockless e-bike parking,” he said.
The Guardian’s deputy political editor Peter Walker pointed out one of the arguments for the change, suggesting that the Department for Transport “could have been lobbied by big logistics firms wanting to move into bike freight”. Safe cycling campaigner Ruth Mayorcas said if this is the case then legislation and enforcement around cycle lanes would be required also.
Here are some of your thoughts…
squired: “Personally, I’d increase the cut-off limit to 20mph to align better with the widespread implementation of 20mph roads before considering a 500w motor. If the motor power was increased and the cut-off remained as-is it would just encourage more extensive de-restricting of bikes. If the assist was increased to 20mph I think that would be more than sufficient for the vast majority of people and any increase in power would just be saved for hills.”
ride2smile: “I’ve skim read the consultation document. Looking at it from the perspective of who would benefit most I’d say delivery type organisations. That has the capacity to greatly increase the use of cycle lanes for commercial use and also increase the size / weight of cycles using cycle lanes. I can see pros and cons. Online shopping has driven an increase in delivery drivers, more traffic on the roads and an increase in vans parking anywhere. Higher-powered pedalecs utilised for deliveries could do the same. Flip side is that if commercial organisations see a benefit they may lobby for more cycling infrastructure.”
essexian: “Madness if this goes ahead and one more step towards the need for a cycling licence for all riders. 250w is sufficient. If you want more power, get a motorbike.”
It's just the one cyclist, actually...
Just the one cyclist? pic.twitter.com/wncv9IraA8
— Spencer (@plotfolk) February 29, 2024
Spectator who threw cup of drink at Marianne Vos at Omloop Het Nieuwsblad to be questioned by police
Cycling campaigner raises concerns about cycle routes to newly built school for 1,500 pupils
A member of Kidical Mass Reading, Hilary Smart, has expressed concerns about cycling links to a newly built school in Caversham. The Henley Standard reports the academy will open in September and will have 1,500 pupils attending it, however Ms Smart has raised worries about cycling routes to the new facility on Richfield Avenue.
“The council is building a new school by Rivermead and putting in cycling infrastructure along Richfield Avenue but it does not intend to do any work to connect this new bike lane to the cycling route over Caversham Bridge,” she said.
“Therefore, if the kids have any sense, they won’t be going along Richfield Avenue using the new paths built with the funding, they’ll cut straight down to the river. This means that the children who do cycle will have to navigate either a blind corner on Caversham Bridge and narrow unfenced paths by the river or the awful roundabout by the Crowne Plaza.
“We believe that if they joined up the bike lanes many more children would want to cycle to school. This would help them build independence and healthy habits and reduce car traffic over the bridge at drop-offs. Many secondary school children are mature enough to cycle to school independently. We are failing if the lack of safe infrastructure is the thing that stands in the way of them developing environmentally friendly and healthy habits.”
"Cyclists think they can do whatever they want": Viral video shows moment driver uses bike lane to queue-jump gridlocked traffic
This video posted on social media by Andy Boenau, the man behind Urbanism Speakeasy, a podcast and website championing the benefits of well-designed infrastructure, offering inspiration for if you want to “create a bicycle-friendly place that draws out the most smiles per square mile” (or other non-cycling projects)…
“There’s no such thing as car brain.” pic.twitter.com/nUHXC5Tl5G
— Andy Boenau (@Boenau) February 27, 2024
It’s got almost one million views since Wednesday, other people commenting and sharing the video getting thousands of views themselves too. While the rest of the scene’s drivers sit at standstill on the gridlocked road, one queue-jumping motorist takes a shortcut along the bike lane, perhaps inadvertently giving us all a real-world demonstration of the efficiency of cycle lanes. An efficiency ultimately ruined by… a vehicle’s user that shouldn’t be there causing a blockage when trying to rejoin the gridlocked road network…
The video is ripe for the usual ‘nobody’s using that empty bike lane’ comments, but as some pointed out in the comments, the cycling infrastructure only looks empty because the people using it have almost certainly moved on to their destination by now and don’t have to sit in a half-hour queue.
“if only cyclists had license plates, they can be held accountable”
“Cyclists think they can do whatever they want” https://t.co/m1yFSq3Hnn— ZeroEnigma (@Zer0Enigma) February 27, 2024
“Getting to the intersection and seeing there’s already a driver blocking the box was just👌 ,” one person replied.
“How else is the car driver supposed to get past all that darn tRaFfiC? Don’t you know he’s IMPORTANT?” another said.
The best part is when the car driving in the bike lane gets blocked by another car in the bike lane and the bikes just roll past.
— Donal (@Spelt_D_o_n_a_l) February 28, 2024
Cue the sequel…
“People on bikes think they’re so special.” pic.twitter.com/If9GIPASkz
— Andy Boenau (@Boenau) February 28, 2024
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
92 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Correct. The Guardian is not a source of scientific data. It is a newspaper that REPORTS on the findings of scientists. And scientists are almost unanimous that anthropocentric global warming is real and represents a thereat to humanity. Anyway, this article isn't from the Guardian, so I don't know why you're wanging on about it.
Have the people complaining actually tried the ChatGPT for Komoot app? It doesn't sound like it to me. Because if they had, they would have much more specific complaints about how crap it is. (I'm going to confess I'm a bit of a hypocrite - I haven't tried it myself, as I don't have a ChatGPT account (I do have a Komoot account). But plenty of examples on the internet of people trying it and getting routes that have seemingly little relationship to the prompt supplied).
“planning the race for the morning hours and avoiding the afternoons could substantially increase rider and spectator safety” but it would reduce the appeal to sponsors and TV broadcasters, who pay the bills and so are far more important than the riders and spectators. It's therefore not going to happen. Even making a last-minute switch in extreme situations probably won't work because of the amount of logistics and people involved - the TdF is SO much bigger than the Tour Down Under.
Ah, the scientific rigour of the climate-change-denying right, a blank assertion with no evidence offered coupled with an insult. Pathetic.
Or, in higher temperatures, use ice jackets and ice bundles which can be replenished from the support car.
A cooling sleeve cools you down for maybe 30 minutes and then it becomes a hassle, it also prevents heat leaving the body as an "empty" sleeve now becomes an extra layer. It does make some sense for a time, but in the long run it's just problematic to use. It's just much easier to just pour water over your body.
This kind of journalism makes me laugh. As climate change brings ecological breakdown and migration on a biblical scale and international food security puts the price of food out of most people's pockets then there isn't going to be any bike racing in the morning or any other time. Get an allotment and learn how to protect it. Good luck everyone.
I often wonder why they don't wear cooling arm sleeves and cooling hats under their helmets. At a guess it's probably something to do with 'the rules', as this is road racing. Headsweats caps and similar make a big difference to how hot you get and you avoid getting your head sunburnt through the gaps in your helmet.
It's good going to keep the Vanquish price at £485, especially if you can still get a discount through Cycling UK or British Cycling, or maybe a cashback site (I've seen 10% via Complete Savings before). Shame Halfords didn't change the cassette as road.cc suggested in their review last year though.
Plenty of distinguishing features to identify the place including "Dubai, UAE" right at the top of that Insta post. And using a mobile phone while driving is illegal in Dubai and across the UAE.
92 thoughts on ““Cyclists think they can do whatever they want”: Viral video shows moment driver uses bike lane to queue-jump gridlocked traffic; Wout van Aert’s “calculated risk” for classics; DJ Dom Whiting announces first cycling event of 2024 + more on the live blog”
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/29/ministers-to-consult-on-doubling-the-legal-wattage-of-electric-bike-motors
Madness if this goes ahead and one more step towards the need for a cycling licence for all riders.
250w is suffient. If you want more power, get a motorbike.
The cynic in me thinks this
The cynic in me thinks this is designed to intentionally further divide the public on e-bike usage. I can see absolutely no benefit and many, many drawbacks. What are they trying to achieve? It can’t be to encourage more people on to e-bikes given there are hundreds of other things that can be done before this that would actually work. No one is not buying an ebike because it can’t accelerate away from lights quick enough or that it’s too light.
The only benefit I can see it
The only benefit I can see is for people with heavier cargo bikes (delivery compansies etc) but actually enforcing the 15.5mph limit when you’ve could legally fit such motors to regular bikes :-/
essexian wrote:
I’m more concerned about the possible legalisation of throttle control – that really would make them motorbikes. (I would support throttle control for, say, up to 4kmph to help get started, though.)
Steve K wrote:
It’s already legal to have throttle assist up to 6 km/h.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Thanks – I wasn’t sure. My Tern GSD has walk assist, but you can’t use that to get going when you’ve got a kid on the back, it’s a hill, and you’re in the wrong gear.
Steve K wrote:
I do think there could be a case for allowing a little more power for heavier cargo bikes in order to meet the sort of situation you describe, just to make sure that they retain what for me is one of the greatest advantages of an ebike, namely being able to pull away quickly from the lights and avoid becoming entangled in traffic across junctions.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I know this was explained to me previously but I obviously wasn’t paying enough attention. I thought we agreed that Twist and Goes were legal without a license up to 15.5mph if they were “EU Type Approved”.
The throttle assitance up to 6kmh I think is designed to get a Pedal Assisted e-bike started.
IanMK wrote:
I believe that is the case, however as I understand it virtually no ebike manufacturers have gone for type approval because this requires the same EU regulation as for motorcycles and cars and is extremely expensive, being designed for large factories producing high-value vehicles rather than bicycle manufacturers.
Steve K wrote:
— Steve KI think 4,000mph is probably a little too high.
I put this on the forum this
I put this on the forum this morning. Seems very odd that this is the government’s priority re.cycling and active travel. Tend to agree that this will be a backward step for all cyclists, e- or otherwise and may open the door for licensing of all ebikes. Why not just enforce against illegal electric motorbikes?
Why not just enforce against
Why not just enforce against illegal electric motorbikes?
Because they can’t be bothered to do the work and they have a permanent get-out dodge: insufficient resources, squire! They are prepared to do a lot more work sitting at a desk complaining about how they’re too busy to do the work, than they would if they were actually working at doing their jobs. Why don’t they actually prosecute these, instead of ignoring them because everybody does it?https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
Why don’t they deal with this vehicle, parked outside the pub (the Eagle and Child) 100 yards from Garstang Police Station several nights a week, which has had no MOT or VED for 6 1/2 years, failed MOT for serious defects and which now has a broken right rear light cluster? Because they can’t be bothered, or they have a private arrangement with the driver. I informed the police 7 months ago and the PCC over 3 months ago
As someone who uses an ebike
As someone who uses an ebike for commuting and heavy loads I would absolutely be against this move, 250 W/15.5 mph is plenty. Any increase would simply make it more likely for demands for licensing and insurance for ebikes to be listened to, and once they had got that in place what’s to stop them coming after unpowered bikes (which I also use and love)? The evidence of what happens when people, especially young men, get their hands on ebikes, or rather on illegal electric motorcycles, faster and more powerful than the current limits can be seen on the streets of London every day, and it’s not pretty.
It is probably designed to
It is probably designed to say ‘look what we can do now we’re not in the EU’.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
Everything is more expensive and travel is more difficult and business are moving their headquarters abroad and we have higher levels of immigration with lower levels of skilled immigrants and….
But look! We made the roads even less safe for cyclists and pedestrians!!
Certain rules on transport
Certain rules on transport power are even stricter, especially as there is crossover between e-bikes and e-scooters and motor powered mobility aids in the way the old law is written. The development and uptake of pedal assist and hybrid with throttle power ebikes have murkied the waters and the categories are not as clear cut any more.
The law is outdated and needs bringing in line with modern varieties of personal transport, but it’s not easy defining fixed categories, especially with hybrid assist/throttle e-bikes. and defining when and where they are legal to use.
I watch a curious old channel on Youtube called Lawrie’s Mechanical Marvels. He mostly looks at vintage industrial railway equipment, road and farm vehicles etc. However in a bid to get fitter, he (albeit sponsored) got a new e-bike that has both throttle and pedal assist. Whilst reviewing the bike, whilst on the road, only used the pedal assist, however when on private land he used the throttle in those areas. He has fully acted within the law on this, and on that front, if everyone who owned one acted similarly, there wouldn’t be a problem. Along the same train of thought, you could easily have a controllable restrictor fitted to a more powerful assist only ebike, that is on whilst on public roads it is on, but on private land can be turned off to unrestricted mode.
The problem lies wherein that such products are subject to human input and therefore human error – People can legally buy this equipment but either don’t know or ignore the laws they could be breaking every single time they use them.
Matthew Acton-Varian wrote:
I don’t believe that is actually the case, it is not legal to have a bike on the road that can be powered solely by a throttle (apart from the type exemptions mentioned elsewhere on this thread), even if you’re not using it. Willing to stand corrected of course but I’m pretty sure that in the (highly unlikely) event of a police officer stopping a rider and checking their bike “I never touch it when I’m on the road” would not be accepted as justification for having an illegal throttle, one could still be charged with taking an illegal ebike on the road without any necessity to prove that you were actually using the throttle. This pretty much makes sense as far as I can see, trying to claim that you never touch the throttle so shouldn’t be sanctioned would be a bit like being caught with illegally tinted side windows and trying to claim that you only ever drove with the windows wound down, it would get pretty short shrift I’m sure.
But the bikes are legal to
But the bikes are legal to purchase in the UK, the same can be said for e-scooters. They come with warnings over following local/national laws etc, but it is user discrepancy as to whether they choose to follow the law. The act of tinting front windows is not; you will not find reputable tinting businesses willing to tint front windows to an illegal level and most instances its the act of the car owner using a home kit. It’s not a fair comparison.
Also have you seen a city centre on a Friday/Saturday evening recently? The amount of bicycle couriers using these bikes are astonishingly large, and all of them regularly use the throttle if not exclusively use it. The rules are unenforceable as they currently stand, otherwise these services would be getting shut down.
I wasn’t commenting on
I wasn’t commenting on whether or not the law is sensible or fit for purpose, I was simply pointing out that the gentleman you mentioned who thinks he is completely within the law to ride an ebike that is capable of achieving its top speed solely under control of a throttle on the public highway provided he doesn’t touch the throttle is mistaken; as the law currently stands an ebike is not legal for road use if it has such a throttle, whether or not the throttle is actually being used.
Whether the rules are
Whether the rules are enforceable or not, requires the police to actually first choose to try.
Great flex …
Great flex …
I can’t get a range extender battery for my Italian bike because we’re not in the EU.
Fanfeckingtastic.
With great power comes great
With great power comes great responsibility.
Will this extra power be used wisely ?
I remember a quote from a wood working forum, “it’s quite hard to cut your fingers off with a hand saw”.
As power increases, the skills required to control it become more important, untrained and careless use of this could be a problem especially if they are mixing it with pedestrians on shared use space etc.
I don’t own an e-bike but can see the appeal – I think if I was a teenager again, I’d be hankering after an electric scooter or e-bike and thinking of ways to get rid of the 15mph limit and the need to pedal. Fortunately I’m not a teenager and I’m pretty sure my dad wouldn’t have let me have one anyway
My local most high profile
My local most high profile EAPC user says “get one whilst you are still fit-ish”, so you are ready for when you need it.
Yeah – hope we’re not just
Yeah – hope we’re not just seizing on this idea because e.g. that’s how they do it in the US.
As Cudgel of this parish (IIRC?) noted – also in the context of woodworking – in the US the ability to “do it your way” / “get more power” is apparently much more valued than “kit that helps you do things safely”. With the expected litany of “accidents” from those with a more “frontier” perspective…
It is being considered
It is being considered because we live in an era of rampant capitalism fueled by successive conservative governments, if that needed saying. Any proposal that might generate more sales to the masses is given serious consideration, pretty much above all else it seems. Money is at the root of pretty much every decision. It cetainly isn’t society.
Many a good point being made
Many a good point being made here. Me, I can’t think why they’re considering this. 500w, throttle controlled but still 28kmh? Good luck enforcing that. Unrestricted 500w would be nuts, those bikes would be laughing at 40mph limits let alone 30mph.
If you live somewhere
If you live somewhere challenging ie, edge of the lake or peak district you’ll quickly find uk rated and made 250w motors aren’t quite up to it especially if you’re carrying your weekly shop could find your amp rating isn’t enough. I have a grey build from the laws changing 350w torque motor (400rpm max) I wasn’t able to electronically restrict or install a pedal assist, instead I made my own gear set to compensate and lower motor out put.
Some stats I’m a short rider 10.5 st my ride weighs 40-45kg (included weight: battery, motor, controller & frame)
Paging wtjs !!!
Paging wtjs !!!
If you live somewhere
If you live somewhere challenging ie, edge of the lake or peak district you’ll quickly find uk rated and made 250w motors aren’t quite up to it especially if you’re carrying your weekly shop could find your amp rating isn’t enough
Motor OK? Check. Amps OK? Check
You’re all thinking of it
You’re all thinking of it from a road perspective (I know, the website title!).
500w off road with even heavier bikes is going to ruin the trails completely.
It seems really dumb idea,
It seems really dumb idea, can’t see what value the govt see in it, not even sure I buy the cargo bike reasoning, remember 90% of the UK outside the Westminster bubble don’t have cycle lanes they could use, they’d be on pavements or mixing in with traffic like the rest of us on the road.
My two cents:
My two cents:
I am reluctant to simply extend the current EAPC regulations to higher powered vehicles. I think the current regulations work for vehicles that are relatively slow and light – like a normal bicycle but with a bit of assistance.
However, I do think there is merit in encouraging uptake of vehicles that are smaller, lighter and less polluting than typical cars/vans for last-mile deliveries and personal mobility. To some extent we already have this for motorpeds – low powered mopeds can be riden unsupervised from age 16, with a provisional licence and CBT.
I think this is something that other countries do – I think the Netherlands has “S-pedelecs” (top assissted speed 45km/h), whilst the French have “voiturettes”.
That said, there is certainly a balancing act – whilst overall those types of vehicles are better than typical cars/vans, they must remain lower in the travel hierarchy to public transport and active travel.
It should really by
It should really by straightforward.
E-assist up to 25kph is good for a normal pedal cycle solo and treat it like a non-motorised vehicle as we do now so you can use dedicated cycling infrastructure
If you need more power to pull a heavier load such as a big cargo bike or you want to travel faster then that’s really a motorbike (or moped as they were basically the same, restricted speed, pedals, number plate, helmet, lights) and you need a licence, etc as you would with a moped. This would mean that you can’t use infrastructure for non-motorised vehicles so no cycle paths, shared paths etc but you could use a bus lane if motorcycles were allowed.
Also, if your employment relies on you using the public highway, you should have proof that you have at least a basic understanding of how to use the highway safely, just like you would in ANY other workplace with risks involved. This would be either a provisional licence and CBT or Bikeability (Cycling Proficiency as was years ago) if you complied with e-assist above.
mikewood wrote:
I think that goes a long way towards understanding the motivations behind this consultation. It basically means delivery companies can employ drivers without a driving licence, so they can scrape lower down the barrel, and pay less.
Having to share the road with
Having to share the road with such incompetents is bad enough when they have no ‘advantage’ so additional weight and power seems most likely to increase road danger in what should be protected space.
So more weight and power must mean not in the cycle lanes. Who’s going to enforce that….
It usualy annoys me when
It usualy annoys me when something blocks the cyclelane needlessly but for some rason I was delighted this time :-/
if you want to comment here
if you want to comment here is the consultation
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/smarter-regulation-proposed-changes-to-legislation-for-electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles
Personally I also see no need to amend current legislation. 250w is quite a lot (more than my FTP!).
I’ve skim read the
I’ve skim read the consultation document. Looking at it from the perspective of who would benefit most I’d say delivery type organisations. That has the capacity to greatly increase the use of cycle lanes for commercial use and also increase the size / weight of cycles using cycle lanes. I can see pros and cons. Online shopping has driven an increase in delivery drivers, more traffic on the roads and an increase in vans parking anywhere. Higher powered pedalecs utilised for deliveries could do the same. Flip side is that if commercial organisations see a benefit they may lobby for more cycling infrastructure.
ride2smile wrote:
FTFY.
The Telegraph readership will
The Telegraph readership will never let this one through …. unless they are in it for the long game, hoping the inevitable problems will bring down cycling, LTNs, active travel, the whole damn eco-anything.
ride2smile wrote:
logically then it has driven a decrease in people driving to the shops (ask any traditional shop keeper). Given that one dedicated delivery van is way more efficient than multiple individual car journeys, the net effect must be [i]less[/i] traffic on the roads, fewer cars parked everywhere.
Sriracha wrote:
Hmm… it doesn’t seem like fewer cars parked everywhere – (but Covid / remote working may well have caused some change though).
I’ve heard this a few times but I can’t recall seeing numbers. I’m sure growth of online has changed things but people may also be ordering *more stuff* from more different places as well as “window shopping” ( again ask store owners about that…) So not sure this has been an unqualified win (also check the PACTS analysis for which vehicle type kills the most by distance travelled – perhaps unsurprisingly it’s vans).
If we could get much smaller vehicle “last mile delivery” going with fewer vans that might be a benefit. As others have suggested perhaps lobbying for *that* is also behind this proposal?
I guess I’m naive to think of healthy posties and delivery bikers on EAPCs – it’ll be more like Amazon kilowatt-power autonomous drones filling the “cycle” paths… (But maybe still a small safety improvement over delivery drivers? And they don’t need sick pay or have unions!)
I liked the rantyhighwayman’s
I liked the rantyhighwayman’s take
“Everyone to @Mark_J_Harper
“when are you going to publish the footway parking ban in England consultation.”
“here’s another consultation on, um, electric motorbikes.” “
Personally I’d increase the
Personally I’d increase the cut-off limit to 20mph to align better with the widespread implementation of 20mph roads before considering a 500w motor. If the motor power was increased and the cut-off remained as-is it would just encourage more extensive de-rescricting of bikes. If the assist was increased to 20mph I think that would be more than sufficient for the vast majority of people and any increase in power would just be saved for hills.
Hmm… as usual “what are the
Hmm… as usual “what are the others doing?” I suspect that one reason many countries where far more people cycle have stuck with 15.5 is that it’s a good balance. I’m not convinced the UK needs to be “innovative” here (yet again…).
On the one hand quite a few people feel 20mph ebikes would “even things out” between bikes and cars, given 20mph roads. However outside of Wales and specific urban areas elsewhere we often have 30, not 20. Particularly on the distributor roads that cyclists need to be on* (the ones that actually go somewhere).
Plus in the UK we’re often still talking 20mph “roads” not “streets” **. And we know that most drivers are going over 20mph.
So… the extra speed might be attractive to a minority of current cyclists, maybe?
I doubt it will encourage more people to cycle, because people just don’t like mixing it with volumes of motor traffic***.
It will also likely mean that more cyclists are going faster – including those who are maybe less physically robust (e.g. older people who are more likely to be injured in any crash).
* Cyclists need to be on these roads (which are commonly equipped with separate cycle paths elsewhere) because we currently build infra where it’s easy / doesn’t cause uproar from the motorists, not where it’s most needed!
** In that these are used by rather large volumes of motor traffic – because in the UK they may have functions of “route” as well as “place”. In the UK even what are logically end-destination streets (e.g. in a residential estate) tend to be permeable at both ends of a street (so can be used to “rat-run” / re-route).
*** Lots of other reasons for this of course.
Agree.
Agree.
I think the way you view e-bikes makes a difference to opinions on this. If you see them as a way of making cycling a bit easier, then a 250W & 15.5mph is probably adequate. But if you are considering an e-bike as a replacement for a car, then a 20mph & 500W limit makes it a far more attractive prospect.
I agonised over getting an e-bike when I was cycle commuting regularly. But I was relatively fit then and could maintain an average speed in excess of the 15.5mph cut off, unless going uphill. I determined the help I would get uphill was not worth it for the penalty on the flat. If the limit was 20mph, it would have been a no-brainer and I would have bought one immediately.
My commute was rural national speed limit roads, with lots of motorised traffic, no cycling infrastructure and only encountering the odd other cyclist.
I also took kids to school, on surburban streets, on a cargo bike for several years. Dodgy overtakes were an issue on one particular stretch of road. Being able to hit 20mph, paired with a 20mph limit, would have felt a lot safer.
If 1,500 kg of car has no
If 1,500 kg of car has no legal requirement for an engine power assistance limiter, why does 20 kg of bicycle need one?
Because you don’t need a
Because you don’t need a licence for a bicycle?
Benthic wrote:
Cars definitely should have power limits and be geographically speed limited too. It would be easy and cheap to implement as the technology is already present in almost all new cars but it would stop people pointlessly consuming as there would be no reason to buy a new bigger, more powerful, more pointless car and under capitalism there is nothing worse than an end to pointless consumption so it won’t even be proposed, nevermind enacted.
Current rules for E-scooter
Current rules for E-scooter trials are:
It would probably make sense to align eBike and E-scooter rules. Although the obvious concern is that E-scooters require insurance and a driving licence (provisional at least) and don’t think it would be good if you needed those to ride an eBike.
Those rules are irrelevant
Those rules are irrelevant given that they are only enforced for short periods in limited areas, with a PR stunt on social media coverage the only intention.
Even as a cyclist, I find it bloody mayhem trying to walk around cities and large towns due to food deliveries whizzing past in all directions and very fast speeds and with no regard for anything or anyone except to get the job done.
15.5moph is too quick for an
15.5moph is too quick for an escooter imo. 8mph or 12mph makes more sense, given wheel size wtc.
Tom_77 wrote:
“Probably” doing some heavy lifting there. But if you really think so, why is it not a reason to lower e-scooters to the same limits as current e-bikes (EAPCs)?
In the country socially and
In the country socially and institutionally anti-cycling, any initiative to increase the power of ebikes, should be treated with suspicion. The only parties lobbying for those changes would be ebike systems manufacturers and delivery companies and at some point large companies like e.g. Amazon. My serious concern would be a possibility of delivery businesses eventually hijacking cycle lanes to beat the traffic.
Why retain the 15mph limit,
Why retain the 15mph limit, but increase the power?
Unless it’s to assist some of the more heavier bikes, such as the 4 wheelers being used by FedEx et al?
Some of these bodied last mile bikes must be over 250kg when loaded … that’s a fair weight for 250watts.
A standard, two-wheeler [like I’ve got] … why would you need 500watts?
And I live in Scotland and only have one leg that works properly.
Oldfatgit wrote:
I haven’t done any digging but I suspect you have it. Bet it’s simply a case of “follow the lobby” (money) and it’ll be a delivery firm
Or possibly some of the current (ICE motorbike) sellers looking to get a higher price product out. Several of these already have been jockeying for more access / less regulation of things closer to the full-on electric motorbike. I’m sure they’d take a power upgrade as a way to ease towards something like lower-regulation speed-pedelecs / “super off-road” bikes.
I’m slightly concerned about the delivery aspect (beyond the dire food delivery firms). Mixed feelings – less vans would be great, but I’m concerned about capacity on what is our very limited cycle infra. It’s the usual – private commercial users making free with public space issue. There may currently be more regulation on-road…
But why can’t we drive cars
But [i]why[/i] can’t we drive vans down the cycle paths?
Er, clue’s in the name, bro.
Oh, sweet – let’s change the name!
It seems to be forgotten by
It seems to be forgotten by many that the ebike assistance cut off speed on a currently legal ebike can only be attained by pedalling, and that it isn’t a maximum bike speed anyway – that’s up to your leg strength. In my opinion The cut off speed should be set at an appropriate level for the bike type, a Pinarello or Orbea e-road bike 20mph maybe, an e-delivery bike 15mph.
youngoldbloke wrote:
I strongly disagree with this. A 15.5mph cut off for all bikes makes things easy to understand and regulate. Having variable cutoff speeds means nobody actually knowing what the cut off speed for a specific bike and rider should be.
What about if I had an electric land speed fully faired recumbent? would that be limited to 60mph as that’s a reasonable speed to attain on such a machine?
Agree with cyclinguk – https:
Agree with cyclinguk – https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/statement-proposed-changes-e-cycle-regulations
I don’t see much value to
I don’t see much value to their point about acceleration. How many people would have their bike set to 100% motor power to accelerate from a standing start, knowing the motor is going to cut out at 15.5mph anyway? Even the highly dodgy e-bikes that I see many food delivery cyclists using, where no pedalling is required don’t seem to offer motorbike like acceleration.
Simon Cowell?
Simon Cowell?
They couldn’t totally destroy
They couldn’t totally destroy cycling from without, however many decades the tried, but with e-bikes they’ve finally found a way to destroy it from within. But maybe it’s not going fast enough?
I don’t think it’s about
I don’t think it’s about destroying cycling exactly – though there are a few nutters in the political arena. It’s just another opportunity for “more” and “we’re doing something” without the government having to invest major sums or face public uproar. (Again – haven’t checked but almost certainly driven by “market” or rather people keen to sell more expensive versions of stuff we already have, for more profit margin).
As far as I’m aware none of the major parties thinks about cycling any more often than most of the population. It’s basically irrelevant to them. They don’t really understand it now, and they’ve almost no idea of what it could be. And certainly not what you’d need to achieve that [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). If they did I suspect they still wouldn’t worry too much about negative consequences because most people in the UK don’t cycle and those that do aren’t highly regarded.
This won’t achieve the overt “purpose” for the proposed change *. It won’t turn the UK into a nation of cyclists or create a level playing field for those with disabilities.
That’s for the same reason as always – “where it’s easy to drive, Brits drive”. That’s the case everywhere; politicians made that choice long ago and are constantly reaffirming it (The Conservatives most notably recently, but others are available). After that, where everyone is driving people just don’t feel comfortable cycling. And cycling will generally be less convenient – because you’ve all the inconveniences of driving e.g. long waits at traffic lights, road noise etc. AND you’re slower and outside a motor vehicle.
* Per BBC – “In its consultation document, the government says the changes would make e-bikes a ‘more attractive and viable travel option for more people’, giving the example of people with mobility issues.”
I can not Like your comment
I can not Like your comment enough.
Finally someone else who recognises e-bikes are f*cking up cycling as we know it.
Everything that makes bikes so utterly wonderful is being ruined by e-bikes, step by step. Affordability, elegance, simplicity, longevity, ease of maintenance, dependability, sustainability, ease of use, durability, the health improving effect… it is all going down the drain, all for a little assist in pedalling. I hate it.
What makes it even more frustrating, is that most of the people buying in to those heavy, expensive ‘bikes’ only feel they need that e-assist because they have only ever ridden lousy bikes. If they had experienced the joy of a nice, light, fitting, well performing, sporty but comfortable bike, they wouldn’t have cared for that.
Total rubbish. EBikes have
Total rubbish. EBikes have revolutionised urban transport. ecargo bikes have enabled people to carry stuff (and children), logistics companies use e-bikes and small business use e-bikes instead of vans. In Paris and London – where I live, mums and dads carry thier kids to school, the post office deliver parcels and letters, people commute to the office dressed in their suits and shoes. And older, less fit people use e-bikes. Go and visit German towns or come to Paris and see how the ebike has enabled many people to cycle
Sredlums wrote:
I disagree. I use an ebike for when I have to visit the office or go shopping, because it’s often better/faster/easier than driving my van, is virtually maintenance free and can take 25kg in the panniers. I have a large number of “nice, light, fitting, well performing, sporty but comfortable bikes” which I ride for the joy of it, but for office or shops, the ebike is first choice.
My disabled neighbour really
My disabled neighbour really likes her e-bike. It allows her mobility, without the running costs of her adapted vehicle. My elder brother has arthritis and a Swytch conversion allows him to carry on riding.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Indeed, and a good thing that is too. All those arguments in the consultation about assisting the disabled seem to miss the fact that current EAPCs do exactly that. I hate it when the “won’t someone please think of the disabled” card is played in the face of the disabled themselves, and as a distraction to whatever ulterior motives are actually at large.
I guess I must be lucky where
I guess I must be lucky where I live – plenty of ”normal” bicycles still available and probably will be for a very, very long time. I don’t feel frustrated by anyone buying an e-bike – why would I? It doesn’t affect me in the slightest.
perce wrote:
Where I live there are plenty of normal bikes available. There are five in our garage. Plus an e-cargo bike. And all but two of them (my ‘retired’ old bike and my wife’s bike) they all get plenty of use of give plenty of joy to the riders (me and the kids).
It’s all about enjoyment,
It’s all about enjoyment, whatever bike you choose to ride.
perce wrote:
But it will when you’re sharing the cycle path with 500W (plus the usual wiggle room) twist’n-go motorbikes.
Sriracha wrote:
I guess I must be lucky where I live – plenty of ”normal” bicycles still available and probably will be for a very, very long time. I don’t feel frustrated by anyone buying an e-bike – why would I? It doesn’t affect me in the slightest.
— SrirachaBut it will when you’re sharing the cycle path with 500W (plus the usual wiggle room) twist’n-go motorbikes.— perce
As the horse has well and truly bolted and young people are encouraged into criminal behaviour just so that they can get from A to B easily and cheaply, I think we should rate ebikes and escooters etc by weight rather than power. It’s easier to check the weight of a device than its power and the mass is an important part of how dangerous vehicles can be. Maybe have a limit of 20kg for privately owned vehicles – that would then bring a lot of devices back into legality and then we can focus on the elephant in the traffic.
Sredlums wrote:
Absolute nonsense. I know the joy of riding superb race bikes, as I’ve owned them all my life and have three at the moment. I also have an ebike because I needed it to get over a very serious illness and the drugs I had to take for it, when I couldn’t ride 5 km without making myself severely ill, the after effects of which I still suffer and which has meant that although I can still ride 100 miles on my road bikes when I want to it leaves me exhausted for days, so riding a 50 km commute every day without assistance was too much for me. I also use it for carrying heavy loads, taking shopping to elderly parents et cetera. It replaces numerous trips that otherwise I would be making using a car, with all the pollution and congestion contribution that would make, would that be preferable for you? If you hate that, I really don’t care.
Superb race bikes, however
Superb race bikes, however superb they may be at riding fast, are not what I meant when I specifically said “a sporty but comfortable bike”.
I actually happen to love race biukes and mountain bikes, but the whole perception that a really good bike automatically means a sports-type bike, is the very problem. Most people just have no experience with – or knowledge of their existence – a practical, fully featured, but still lightweight and comfortable(!) kind of bike.
They are used to crappy, heavy, ill-fitting, badly functioning city bikes, and feel a ‘good’ bike is automatically one where you sit hunched over, ride without mudguards and a kickstand and lights and so forth.
Sredlums wrote:
Hmm… do you mean “lots of humans” plus “quest for convenience” plus “what succeeds is what sells” is changing a situation you have nostalgia for?
Some of those are fair, some are subjective and the last I’d disagree with. There seems to be evidence that (compared to alternatives e.g. driving, not going out so much) they contribute to health. (Certainly if fewer journeys are driven that’s a health win for everyone!)
I’m no a fan of combining everything mechanical with motor power – and generally now a computer and “connectivity”. Or of “planned obselescence” (see previous sentence – adding an app is great for that!). But I’m irrelevant – the current way is “technology at the speed of fast fashion” with all the overuse and waste that goes with that.
In fact – people “misusing” stuff / overusing resources / pursuing “convenience” they don’t need (“luxury”) has been a thing since humans. It’s just increasingly possible for vastly greater numbers of us now.
The positives of eBikes are a mixed picture. I hope ebikes / micro-vehicles could help get us away from more problematic vehicles (more dangerous / noisy / less space efficient etc). However most people want something “like a car / van” because that is known, and has been “required” for a few generations.
eBikes can also be great as an enabler for e.g. people with disabilities / older people. But that will probably be balanced by the more able pushing their way to the front of the queue, same usual.
This is the most questionable part. I know people who have ridden better bikes than I’ve owned but now being older / less well are pleased to have a way of “keeping up” / “still getting out” via ebikes.
Also I don’t think many people are buying ebikes because of bad experiences with bikes. Those people (delivery riders or previous “non-cyclists”) are likely just interested in the mobility and convenience and want something “with a motor” – which isn’t a car or actual motorbike.
I think most people are mostly interested in availability and reliability of transport, journey time, cost, ability to transport items / people I need, directness… Plus avoiding other inconveniences e.g. parking / vehicle storage.
Wow, that’s alot of reactions
Wow, that’s alot of reactions on my comment.
I never denied e-bikes have their good sides. They do, and if they speak to you, by all means, use those benefits to your advantage.
What almost all of you people missed however, is that I said “e-bikes are f*cking up cycling as we know it.”
And that ‘as we know it’ part is actually the main point of what I said in my original comment.
If the elderly or other people who can use some assistence for whatever reason, and e-bikes provide that: cool.
If people leave their car at home more often: great.
Etc., etc.
My gripe against e-bikes is that, while doing all the above things, they are also changing ‘traditional cycling’. Over here in The Netherlands, what is considdered a ‘normal bike’ has already changed. Even kids nowadays expect an e-bike when they get a new bike. So that means parents are facing huge extra costs. It also means a lot of extra hassle (think keeping them charged, store them safe and dry, and near electricity, paying for insurence etc.), and bikes are obsolete way faster, adding to the cost further.
Normal bikes are now an afterthought. In bike shops they are relegated to a small corner in the back of the shop. Developements will slow, and eventually stop. Parts will get scarce.
And I haven’t even touched other problems, like an increasing amount of accidents, bike lanes getting less pleasant with people flashing by at high speeds (without being experienced at riding at those speeds).
E-bikes have their upsides, sure, but they also change the very things that made cycling so great to begin with, and that truly saddens me.
Ah – I forgot where you stay.
Ah – I forgot where you stay. Well in NL you’ve a right to complain – you’ve got to the point that bikes are just like cars. As in – everyone’s riding one and all complaining about the traffic or that they can’t find a parking spot.
In the UK you’d be hard-pressed to screw up cycling “as we know it” (not that it stops a few trying – but by and large it’s just neglect / indifference). So I guess here it seems like ebikes are pretty low on the list of things to worry about.
However – once there is mass cycling then … yeah, that’s a really attractive mass market! Those who brought us the automobile* are no doubt capable of bringing some other aspirational convenience which people will buy en mass – and we’ll all find out the unwanted side effects of mass use later in time.
Also unlike cars (which tend to suppress other modes) it seems mass cycling has a certain fragility **.
David Hembrow raises an interesting point about this in NL – the effect on the second-hand market (mid-way through the article).
* Effortless transport! Less hassle than a horse! Solves all your transport needs! Your own personal carriage! All the film stars have one! Freedom! (With an undercurrent of sex, for the younger…)
** Perhaps bikes are a bit too “egalitarian” / decentralised? Too cheap and simple? People will always seek “less effort” – especially if used to cars. And humans are always looking for ways of displaying their status to others – if not a nicer car then what about an eBike? Authorities are complacent – because it’s so efficient some cycling will usually happen “by itself” and work around / with other modes. This is the case even in the UK and the US where we really went all-in on road transport after others started to try to change direction.
I think you will have a point
I think you will have a point if they do go through with the proposals in the consultation. It is nonsense, at the stroke of the legislative pen, to extend the definition of “bicycle” to include non-pedalling motorised transport well beyond the normal human performance envelope, and thereby claim to have increased “cycling”, or indeed “active travel”, and its concomitant benefits.
All the virtues claimed for current EAPCs rest on their near-equivalence to ordinary bicycles; size, weight, performance, speed, exercise and so on. The difference is limited to 250W, which puts athletic performance within reach of the unathletic, without stretching the other parameters too far.
You can not have something which is fundamentally different and pretend it is basically the same – no, not even if you get there by degrees. 500W throttle power is in no way alike with 250W pedal [b]assistance[/b], not even if you call it by the same name.
Sriracha wrote:
I wasn’t too concerned by this but now I’m woke and you’ve made me worried.
This is *exactly* what our political masters like to do. Changing words to “fix” things is lower cost and effort. And the current lot – I’m thinking “breaking laws … in specific and limited ways” plus legally defining other countries as safe places.
For all the harrumph about broadening definitions of things they don’t favour, if it suits their favoured groups / businesses to define a dog as a cat? Fetch your bone Tibbles, let’s go for a walk…
Sredlums wrote:
Prejudiced bullshit.
As others have pointed out, the use of e-bikes has allowed people to keep cycling or provided an opportunity for others to replace shorter car journeys with a power-assisted pedalling. The health benefits of these choices should be obvious.
The ridiculous price tags on high end bikes has nothing to do with the rise of e-biking. Ditto for electronic groupsets and tubeless tyres. Nobody spends more than the race-replica blokes with their S-Works bikes and gear, the heat-moulded shoes, or the Assos or Maap layers for all weathers and the trips to the Balearics or Gran Canaria.
Post-Brexit and post-Covid the cost of everything has gone up, food in particular, yet people don’t complain about that (pretty essential, surely) anywhere near as much as when the price of petrol increases by 5p/litre. Whining losers.
If you want a mechanical bikes then you are truly spoilt for choice. Derailleurs from 8 to 12 and sometimes 13, road, all-road, gravel race, gravel bikepacking, utility, touring, folding, made from alu, steel, high-end steel, titanium, carbon, super-light carbon…
e-bikes, and even illegal e-bikes are simply products. Nobody claims that cars are ‘cheating’ or spoiling it for other people (though in fact they are, in various very significant ways as shown time and time again on this site; and they make people lazy). Even ‘cheap’ cars are damned expensive to run and maintain. Is using a trolley at the supermarket cheating?
And you need to use a typewriter for future comments or submit a handwritten piece by post instead of CHEATING with a frigging computer and the internet. And don’t EVER let me catch you using copy & paste instead of writing it all properly, like a grown-up.
My rohloff goes to 14…
My rohloff goes to 14…
Wow. What were you on when
Wow. What were you on when you wrote that?
You put words in my mouth and then blame me for those words. Multiple paragraphs about ‘cheating’, really? Point me to where I said anything about cheating. I’ll wait.
Another thing, please explain to me what TF is ‘prejudiced’ about wanting bikes to remain affordable, self-maintainable and durable?
And what’s with all the rambling about ‘ridiculous price tags on high end bikes’? I still ride the mountain bike I bought in 1994, FFS.
Re-read my comments, then re-read your own comment, and then ask yourself who should behave like a grown-up.
Sredlums wrote:
An old office chair. Why?
I don’t need to re-read your comments and have no intention of changing my response.
The existence and growing popularity of e-bikes is unrelated to an understandable desire for “bikes to remain affordable, self-maintainable and durable”. Blaming e-bikes for whatever you think is happening is down to prejudice, not the current state of bicycle retail.
Those quoted qualities are important to me too, it’s partly why I ride secondhand aluminium bikes with 9 speed Sora and cheap OE wheels all year round (though the wheels on the Trek are about to be upgraded to some £300 handbuilt ones, a birthday gift).
You rant on and on about how
You rant on and on about how all kind of things are not ‘cheating’, all to make your point that riding an e-bike is not cheating, all your anger directed at me, while I never said anything about cheating.
I point out that fact, and your reaction is ‘I HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING MY RESPONSE!!1!’.
That says a lot about you, and none of it is good.
By the way, the existence and growing popularity of e-bikes has already changed what people consider as ‘a normal bicycle’.
If a parent now wants to buy his growing kid a new bike, and suggests a traditional bike, the kid will say ‘What!? Everybody has an e-bike, I’m not gonna ride this bike!”. That means e-bikes have made bicycles more expensive.
That has nothing to do with prejudice.
It’s like the Wild West out
It’s like the Wild West out there…..
I generally confine myself to
I generally confine myself to 1 ‘e-biking is not the same as cycling’ comment per iteration of these fruitless ‘you can get a lot of exercise on an e-bike’ topics, but…. You can, but in practice you don’t, and the way to tell is seeing them travelling uphill sat upright vaguely moving their feet around (pause for all the ‘it’s not cheating, what about the disabled/ cancer/ arthritis etc. comments and reply with ‘fair enough, but the great majority are not disabled/ sick’ etc) There aren’t many cyclists up here, and many fewer e-bikers with none at all in winter because they don’t like getting so cold. However, you can see the future proposed by this ‘the solution is more power’ lobby proposal by going into Preston and Blackpool. I first saw this menacing mob of of fat-tyre, no-pedalling intimidators on Blackpool’s otherwise excellent ‘Ride the Lights’ evening a couple of years ago, and their compatriots are seen on Blackpool’s and Preston’s pavements at any time.
I say ‘No’ to this proposal. The police take no action against illegal e-vehicles now, and will take less than no action against them after the wreckers have encouraged the misuses by making them all legal.
wtjs wrote:
I’ll confine myself to one response to you as you pretty much must know by now what it is: on Thursday I rode the regular 26 km evening commute in one hour four minutes (nothing earth shattering I know, London commute with lots of traffic lights and junctions) on my e-road bike. The battery usage demonstrated that the motor was engaged for less than 7 km of that, i.e. the rest of the time I was riding above the 25 km/h cut off. So I rode 19 km on an unpowered bike, which is good exercise. All the best.
Southampton Drum and Bass
Southampton Drum and Bass about to start.
The whole debate is confused
The whole debate is confused (maybe willfully by manufacturers and retailers) by using group terms for different things. So (unpowered) cycles vs. EAPC (also slightly muddled but “you need to pedal” and assistance is limited by average power and speed), S-pedelec (Europe, it’s still a moped here) and now this UK proposal to essentially legalise electric mopeds (double EAPC power and throttle rules change so it would seem pedals are optional).
Meanwhile – as the thread on Ashley Neal’s “bike review” points out – people are perfectly happy to sell you a full-on electric motorbike and advise you it’s illegal so just slow down and make like you’re pedalling if the police are about.
Also was in Currys today – they’ve got 500w (sustained) electric scooters on sale, definitely no pedals there and I couldn’t see any notes about legality. (I didn’t ask the staff or read ALL the paperwork, presumably there’s the usual backside-covering disclaimer.)
On balance I’m for fixing
On balance I’m for fixing things to make it better for users of existing legal EAPCs. Those have genuine benefits for lots of individuals. Even if “but not everyone needs them” and (if we ever fix the UK for cycling, to Scandinavian levels if not NL) I can see us drifting towards these being the majority form of “cycle”. They’re similar enough to non-powered cycles in performance – with caveats about the old and young (IIRC a small increase in danger observed in a VeligheidNL study).
I’m much more dubious about widening definitions of “legal eBikes”. Especially in the UK where the non-business *users* are hardly calling for it.
Even though the horse has bolted somewhat eg. we’re now going to be chasing after what is already being sold. Plus in theory this might allow us to do some “harm minimization” around deliveries eg. fewer vans.