Several more police forces have publicised the enforcement work they are taking to seize illegal ‘e-bikes’ that are “technically motorcycles”.
As is regularly missed in news reports and even some police communications about some ‘e-bikes’, Suffolk Police is keen to point out these are not legally electric bicycles and “are technically classed as motorcycles”, the force educating users on EAPC ‘electrically assisted pedal cycle’ standards such as the 250w maximum power output and motors not being allowed to propel a bicycle when it’s travelling at more than 15.5mph.
“If an electric bike does not meet the standards then they are technically classed as motorcycles,” PC Matthew Dilks told the BBC during enforcement work in Ipswich. “These more powerful bikes are going at increased speeds and they also weigh significantly more than a normal bike. Thankfully, we’ve not had any serious injuries to anybody, but that is a good enough reason to make sure that never happens and we get these bikes off of the roads.
“It’s all in the interests of keeping people safe.”
While the riders of these illegal electric motorcycles are often called ‘cyclists’ in media reports about ‘e-bike’ incidents, if their bike is not legally an EAPC then riders are required to register, tax and insure their vehicle, have a valid driving licence, wear a motorcycle helmet that meets safety standards, and abide by other road traffic laws applicable to motorcyclists, not cyclists.
During the BBC’s visit, Suffolk Police officer PC Dilks reported seizing “the most illegal” e-bike he had seen, a bike fitted with a 1,000w motor.
“If an electric bike does not meet the standards then they are technically classed as motorcycles,” he explained. “They therefore need to be insured and registered and the rider needs to wear a crash helmet. You can have a normal mountain bike that has had a battery and a motor retrofitted to it that is completely illegal because it is too powerful and goes too fast.
“Just like vehicle drivers, some people take responsibility and some buy these bikes without double checking and making sure they are legal. As always there are some people who are honestly going about their day and some who are consciously not following the rules. Either way it is important for us to educate, make sure we are strict, and have a zero tolerance approach to make sure members of the public are kept safe.”
Suffolk Police reported it had seized six bikes in the past week, while Leicestershire Police has seized 187 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters in Leicester since the launch of a crackdown in January.
Earlier this month, a Labour MP asked the government to introduce stricter e-bike and e-scooter laws, arguing the current “situation is unsafe” and “battery safety, speeding and enforcement” needs to be addressed “before more people are hurt”.
On the retail and manufacturing side of things, he suggested there is a need for enforcement of international standards at sale and import, restrictions on the sale to certified retailers, regulated battery disposal, compliance checks on users and retailers, and public safety campaigns.
Cyclists using designated cycle infrastructure have also raised concerns about sharing routes with high-powered illegal bikes. Earlier in the spring a public plea was made to a Labour MP in Sheffield, Gill Furniss, a campaigner calling for the police and local authorities to crack down on the use of illegally modified electric bikes – which she says could lead to “someone being killed” as riders use cycling infrastructure at 30mph.
148 thoughts on ““They’re technically motorcycles”: Police continue crackdown on illegal ‘e-bikes’ causing “persistent” issues in city centres”
I don’t think the word
I don’t think the word ‘technically’ does any favours here. It’s giving a bit of wiggle room where non should exist.
How?
How?
If they are technically motorcycles (based on precise facts, which, however, may be contrary to common belief or casual terminology), they are motorcycles.
But I would also add in the eyes of the law the technical defintion is what counts eg when the power is on irrespective of the pedalling action then techncially (In a technical – involving specialized knowledge -way) they are still motorcycles.
Others may argue that they are electrically assisted pedal cycles but technically and technically they are not.
Technically, you’re a pedant.
Technically, you’re a pedant.
dodgy wrote:
Thanks, but I would add that perhaps the police knew exactly what effect they wished to achieve, hence they structured their communication to say exactly that.
Many in public office throw in words such as “literally’ or “look” or “listen” when answering questions. Those unecessary additions (casual terminolgy) may lead to ambiguity and undermine the message.
If people wanted to exploit wiggle room, being a pedant and understanding the differing interpretations that might be applied often removes that space and brings the discussion back to the germane facts.
Unfortunately there are not more of us.
It’s good to know that Mr
It’s good to know that Mr Logic has found employment on this site.
Flattered, thanks very much.
Flattered, thanks very much.
Personally I find the precise term conveys the message accurately and briefly and removes all wiggle room
Suffolk Police officer PC
Or to paraphrase dodgy, whilst correct, the words “technically classed as” are redundant. Their use suggests that “technically class”ing as motorcycles somehow makes them not really motorcycles in the eyes of the law. But they are motorcycles. They became motorcycles the moment they were de-restricted e.g. configured to allow throttle operation, exceed 15.5mph, had a motor with more than 250W strapped to them etc.
Best to just call them what they are in the simplest terms: electric motorbikes.
Yes, thought it was obvious
Yes, thought it was obvious what I was on about. It wasn’t deep.
Or perhaps the law being
Or perhaps the law being facts based, (as opposed to the man on the Clapham omnibus who doesn’t really care) will look at the technical aspects of the vehicle and assess that the perfomance characteristics lead to it being categorised as a motor cycle. That is after all the basis of the categorisation in law:
The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 SI 1983/1168 as amended by the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (Amendment) Regulations 2015 SI 2015/24. ↩
Law is a very technical subject hence barristers being able to demand large sums of money.
Yeah but if the Police want
Yeah but if the Police want to relate to ordinary folk it might be best to use ordinary language, not legalese, or jargon. Where I live the Police aren’t known for their technical ability. Nor are they lawyers. Maybe it is different in your neck?
Why surely their role is to
Why surely their role is to remove dangerous and unlicensed motorcycles, it doesn’t need a degree or a whole load of legal knowledge.
A few simple checks of the physical construction will quickly establish the “technical” (2nd meaning) status to enable the police to then categorise them as motorcycles or otherwise. Especially as you will see big hints such as this:
BikingBud wrote:
I think that would be a good idea…
What you say is true – but also applies to acting (not always so well paid). (Actually … I think I can see the link here…)
The missing piece is that in its practice it’s not as dry and logical as e.g. academic science * but has a lot of “art”. Barristers have to direct actors (witnesses) not always in their employ, convince an audience that didn’t pay to see that show AND not fall foul of a critic (judge) who used to be one of them…
* Even that has its biases, fads and fashions and appeals to authority…
Yup
Yup
Happy with that, the law is a construct of phrases that the barrister has to convince others has been broken, to achive a guilty verdict.
Unfortunately, as we have seen with reports on here of drivers being found not-guilty by their peers, where their own counsel have profferred condemning evidence as mitigation the audience can often be conned because the use of words and their misinterpretation by people who aren’t pedants.
People will exploit ambiguity for their own benefit.
Great stuff. Smash them and
Great stuff. Smash them and throw a big fine at the riders. By which I mean at least 4 digits before any decimal point.
All for that mate.
All for that mate.
We discussed the situation in our local town centre with the Community Police when they brought their bus in.
What are you doing about illegal motorbikes? – Which
All those outside all the fast food shops? – It’s a roads policing issue
But they do not have the resource, you have a van here now there are probably 20 that you could go and confiscate right now, in the next street – 🫥
Crack on, that’s what I say.
well dont worry the local
well dont worry the local press still call them e-bikes https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/25185221.police-crackdown-illegal-e-bikes-ipswich-town-centre/
and theres way more than 6 per week they can find if they put the effort in, and not always the Deliveroos either, even saw one on the A12 last week, who was only inches away, as they appeared to possess no road sense, on two occasions from being another KSI.
Technically, I would have
Technically, I would have thought they were mopeds.
What they are not is; a) EAPCs, b) legal.
Depends on whether they meet
Depends on whether they meet the criteria e.g. motor < 50cc, design speed no more than 28mph.etc
Pub bike wrote:
Exactly it depends upon the technical attributes.
Like in your first pic I’m
Like in your first pic I’m still trying to work out how a motor helps when the driven wheel is locked? Perhaps it’s super powerful and levitating though?
(I know … it’s a “BMW indicator” joke).
All fine with policing the
All fine with policing the ebikes-not-EAPCs. (Though I’d like to see a bit more pressure on the sellers. And the companies which definitely don’t employ people knowing they’ll likely use one of these – no sir we have no employees delivering things so it’s not our problem). But…
“It’s all in the interests of keeping people safe.”— Police
When are they gonna do a crackdown on the drivers / motorbike riders of (legal… perhaps) cars / motorbikes? Because … we have injuries most days and serious injuries and deaths also?
No news about tracing the
No news about tracing the source of these motorbikes and prosecuting the seller/importer. Easy to get the people desperate for cheap transport.
My understanding is that it’s
My understanding is that it’s not illegal to sell these products though – whether as a complete unit, or a conversion kit. The offence is using it other than on private property. That may be a hopeless gap in the law, but it explains why there is no enforcement at the import / retail level (except perhaps when they don’t meet other safety standards).
Looks like food delivery
Looks like mostly food delivery riders. So everyone wants their food delivery A. fast and B. cheap then complain about the existence of the people and vehicles that make A and B possible. Legal system should focus on the billion dollar multinational companies that “employ” these riders. They are able to get away with having lax employment and safety standards – that’s the reason the delivery riders are wizzing around on footpaths riding e-motor-bikes.
I wonder what percent of
I wonder what percent of people are using these food delivery services regularly. How much would they be missed if they went away?
It’s been years since I ordered a pizza (they used to all have their own delivery staff.) I’ve never used Uber Eats or the like.
This is a good question. It
This is a good question. It’s very easy to dismiss stuff which is outside our routines and biases …
… and in this case I am tempted – not only am I not “that person” either, this looks like the opposite of a “public good” in several ways to me …
… but perhaps it’s worth us asking / understanding who is using these things and why. I have heard some stories that e.g. people with certain disabilities / caring responsibilities find delivery services incredibly useful. (See e.g. here in the NotJustBikes video).
Does that compensate for the (complicated – but definitely somewhat negative) side effects of these businesses? Could they be “managed” to minimise those? Currently the first point seems irrelevant – venture capital money is driving this or at least got it started so it may be “tail wagging the dog”. For the second we seem to be going in the opposite direction with these firms having some success in courts over e.g. employment rules.
Well don’t forget they used
Well don’t forget they used to use cars, cars that weren’t insured, taxed, MoT’d and often the driver wasn’t licensed either, and they also paid no attention to traffic lights
It’s kind of like the same problems have always existed just the mode of transport has changed.
There is a very simple
There is a very simple solution to this problem…. And one you will not like but which politicians and the public will love*…. Everyone aged 14 and over needs to be licensed and insured to use the public roads on any type of mechanically propelled vehicle: this would include ebikes or any and all kinds both legal and illegal.
Then of course, people will complain that cyclists on normal muscle powered bikes are “getting away with it”: whatever “it” is, so we will be included in the licensing/insurance scheme eventually.
Frankly, while doing so is likely to kill off legal cycling: those who break the law now are hardly likely to suddenly change and become model citizens, I can see a plus point to cycling becoming more mainstream if taking a cycling test becomes part of the process to get your motorbike, car etc licence. Indeed, I really don’t think anyone should be able to drive a car without first being able to ride a bike and a motorbike.
Sorry, but licensing will be introduced. Now whether the Police do anything to enforce such a law is a different topic area: perhaps we could have some test areas first…ideas of where these should be on a post card….
*By the way, I am not saying I support this. But I can see it happening as the public (or more likely the braindead media they follow), see cyclists as the UK’s No.1 menace.
essexian wrote:
How is extra legislation going to achieve anything if the police don’t have the resources or inclination to enforce the existing legislation around illegal road use of e-motorbikes?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Exactly.
The Police will ignore what is too difficult to manage but the press and politicians will call for this. Its coming whether we like it or not.
Yup
Yup
Town centres where youths wheely through and get ignored v people cycling slowly getting nicked?
Obviously we’re particularly
Obviously we’re particularly sensitive to out-grouping of cyclists, which perhaps distorts our perceptions. I’d be very surprised if the public actually sees cyclists as the UK’s no. 1 menace.
Agree – currently I bet bikes
Agree – currently I bet bikes and all things cycling get very little mind-share across the UK.
… but that doesn’t mean that dystopian ideas may not come about. Perhaps it’s just too difficult (not financially efficient…) for our just-round-the-corner robot driving overlords to spot cyclists? A few children die in the same week … and I doubt the result would be “quick! Let’s implement improved junction design and separate cycle infra where needed across the country” – more like “get your ass airtagged or get off the roads”…
For safety of course.
Would appear to be given the
Would appear to be given the amount of frothing that has occured about the changes to Law based upon one headline and an overblown incident.
Meanwhile another 5 people per day are killed by other motor vehicles.
essexian wrote:
Then of course, people will complain that cyclists on normal muscle powered bikes are “getting away with it”: whatever “it” is, so we will be included in the licensing/insurance scheme eventually.
Frankly, while doing so is likely to kill off legal cycling: those who break the law now are hardly likely to suddenly change and become model citizens, I can see a plus point to cycling becoming more mainstream if taking a cycling test becomes part of the process to get your motorbike, car etc licence. Indeed, I really don’t think anyone should be able to drive a car without first being able to ride a bike and a motorbike.
Sorry, but licensing will be introduced. Now whether the Police do anything to enforce such a law is a different topic area: perhaps we could have some test areas first…ideas of where these should be on a post card….
*By the way, I am not saying I support this. But I can see it happening as the public (or more likely the braindead media they follow), see cyclists as the UK’s No.1 menace. — essexian
Shouting “You’re illegal” to these riders, especially when near or outside the fast food shops where they congegate to serve the lazy people always gets an interesting response.
Does make you wonder if they are illegal for reasons other than riding an unregistered motorcycle.
essexian wrote:
Hey Nige unWelcome Back!
Essexian has been on the site
Essexian has been on the site a long time and is not Nigel, nor a troll.
Hirsute wrote:
You beat me to it. I was about to say the same thing 😀
I wish they’d bring the post
I wish they’d bring the post count back, then you’d know easily if someone had been here a while or just arrived.
Hirsute wrote:
I think I said that at the time…
Although that may have been just after I broke the page-count record
Hirsute wrote:
Some utility to this one – OTOH I believe {nigel} may have used a strategy of having a few spare identities on the go posting intermittently and saying uncontroversial things until they picked one up for trying to attract attention with.
Given the silliness of some of their creations though sometimes they didn’t care…
Cheers….?
Cheers….?
I’ll admit being on the autistic spectrum can make me appear a little strange to “normal” people, but mistaking me for Nigel is a little wide of the mark.
Nevermind. I have more important things to think about than your comment…such as whether I should have oat or almond milk in my coffee…. choices, choices eh!
essexian wrote:
That one’s easy – No.
A while back two boys in Ely,
A while back two boys in Ely, Cardiff, died while both on the same, obviously illegal, e-bike. From the brief video clip released they were obviously doing at least 25 mph. Neither was wearing any kind of helmet. All the uproar was around their having been briefly chased by a police van, with serious rioting. Perhaps if the police had chased them down and stopped them they would still be alive today.
Parental control?
Parental control?
I feel there is a difference beteween those that the food delivery services use, they are workhorse vehicles, often crap condition and poorly looked after.
The wheelying yobs that have full black clothing and balaclavas, only to prevent recognition are more often on better quality vehicles. Where does the cash come to buy these?
Empathy for those that kill themselves as they break the law or do stupid thing is obviously low, there used to be a special set of awards for them.
The Sur-Ron mob. Crush their
The Sur-Ron mob. Crush their vehicles on sight.
BikingBud wrote:
According to reporting at the time, the electric motorcycle was bought for one of the boys by his parents as a birthday present.
Yup🤷🏼♂️
Yup🤷🏼♂️
Yup🤷🏼♂️
Dupe
Not to mention the teenager
Not to mention the teenager and his younger sister killed on an e-scooter, whilst on the road.
Heddwyn wrote:
Well yes, if the police chase had been successful they would be alive – that’s self-evident. But the fact is that they were chased, and they had a fatal crash shortly afterwards. I’m not sure what the effective answer is, and the long-standing police policy of not chasing (or perhaps it’s just not ramming?) motorcyclists seems to have emboldened people, but a pursuit is inherently risky.
quiff wrote:
I believe that (since at least 2019) the use of “tactical contact” for mopeds / motorbikes at least has been used by the police. (Caveats – I believe it’s supposed to be “trained staff” and presumably with bikes this would be a bit more risky as cyclists needing stopped are perhaps less likely to be wearing a helmet and certainly not armour).
No doubt the police would be wary of the optics of this one (“Police drive car into kids!”). Although since they’re just cyclists perhaps not so much (“Watch as teen thug’s reign of terror is hilariously ended!”)…
On topic from this week –
On topic from this week – coroner warns Met over teen killed in police chase (BBC). “The driver did not have the qualification required to pursue motorbikes”. Seems ludicrous that the coroner’s report is 9+ years after the event.
quiff wrote:
“which put him under extra pressure and affected his decision making, an inquest jury found.“
What about his decision to ride the bike and to evade the police?
No mention of any license held by the moped rider or of any training he might have had in evasive riding techniques. Wonder why?
Are they also cracking down
Are they also cracking down on illegal car modifications? E.g. engine remaps, lowered or raised suspension that affects the safety of the vehicle? 17yr olds driving souped up Corsas? Do they sieze these vehicles also? I support clamping down on the illegal e-motorbikes as the riders are generally menaces, but speeding and close passing by cars is a much more serious problem, evidenced by incident statistics.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Indeed – and don’t forget over-tinted windows or just “I put stuff in my vehicle that impedes my vision / distracts me”. This has actually lead to deaths…
I’m not exactly an e-(cycle or scooter) fan (EPACs are legal) but I think there’s a tension between “harm actually being caused” and “potential” and “how easy is it for the police to assess if it’s illegal as defined currently”. I’m only aware of one injury caused by an ebike (type unclear) colliding with a pedestrian in Edinburgh but I’d guess there are more. I think a sliding scale would make sense – but again the police don’t seem well equipped to assess this currently. Not surprising given that our governments are content with ambiguity here / don’t really care.
So while the low-value delivery folks may not be using their machines legally (e.g. throttle) and the bikes often appear poorly maintained I think they’re on the order of “cyclist” risk. It’s rare they overtake me (uphill) on my unpowered bike and they’re clearly not in the “well over 15mph” range. Although as others note they may be “illegal” in other senses.
The “hide your face” brigade on the “full-on-electric-motorbike” either doing high-value delivery or other shady activities (presumably) or – like other youths with actual ICE scrambler bikes – showing off their skills wheelying down the roads, shared paths or footways? More effort needed for sure (same as with the non-electric unlicenced motorbike crew).
I agree that motorbikes in
I agree that motorbikes in general are a bigger issue than modified bicycles. This extends to a lot of licensed motorbikes, the riders of which seem to assume that speed limits do not apply to them.
That said, I have been overtaken by modified bicycles going upwards of 30mph on a number of occasions.
Are they also cracking down
Are they also cracking down on illegal car modifications?
Of course not! They’re not interested in MOTs, double white lines, RLJs except when it’s cyclists, mobile phone use etc. because they’re always too busy doing something else to please the hyper-junk press
I’d suspect that if you’ve
I’d suspect that if you’ve remapped your vehicle then your insurer would consider the insurance invalid. So you’d be driving without insurance with negative consequences for anyone you hit.
anotherflat wrote:
To be fair, there’s already negative consquences for anyone that they hit
Are remaps illegal or is it
Are remaps illegal or is it the fact that the insurance has been invalidated by a none-declared mod?
Remapping a motor is not just about power, it can provide much better fuel efficiency after all we know what a shambles the OEM made of diesel mapping!
Bare in mind some insurance companies considered fitting winter tyres a mod!
If you advise your insurance company that you have remapped your vehicle and a new premium is agreed then you have insurance and you are legal.
Whereas there is no insurance to review and regrade based upon increased risk if you add a motor to a push bike and you now have a vehicle that is illegal, no type or even single vehicle approval, no registration, no MOT.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Engine remaps are only illegal if the vehicle no longer meets regulations e.g. emissions.
But, as has been mentioned,
But, as has been mentioned, it is a mod that your insurers need to be notified of (specification not as supplied by manufacturer), which could invalidate your insurance. That would also be illegal.
This is ridiculous. Do they
This is ridiculous. Do they really expect people to ride ebikes at 15mph? I can run faster than that. This country and the EU are a joke for this and many other reasons.
You can run quicker than a
You can run quicker than a four minute mile? Blimey.
Do you have a Youtube channel: I’d love to follow you.
Let me guess: its called “Run to the bridge.”
essexian wrote:
Well I can run quicker than that.
I just have to stop after a few seconds.
I think I can manage more
I think I can manage more than a few seconds.
Evidently. You went so fast
Evidently. You went so fast you warped time and ended up five days ago.
I said run. I did not say
I said run. I did not say jog for a mile.
Dz1 wrote:
Don’t be fat and lazy and you can ride any bicycle at greater than 15mph, that’s just the speed the motor stops assisting on a legal EAPC.
If the motor goes faster than that, don’t be stupid and lazy, and tax, insure and MOT that motor vehicle.
Whilst you’re out becoming a respectable human being, I’d suggest weaning yourself off the xenophobic rags (sun, mirror, DM, telegraph, etc) and applying a modicum of independant thought
Do you actually own an ebike?
Do you actually own a restricted ebike? My guess is no because you want to go faster than 15mph.
Plenty of people on here have
Plenty of people on here have a restricted ebike and go faster than 25kph.
Dz1 wrote:
Mrs HawkinsPeter has a restricted ebike and regularly goes over 15mph. She loves it and enthusiastically pedals it for her entire commute. IIRC her record top speed is a bit shy of 50kph (going downhill obviously).
Dz1 wrote:
You do know that a restricted ebike is only restricted in terms of the power cuts off at 15 mph, not that it can never be ridden over that pace manually, right? I don’t have one at the moment but when I did have an Orbea Gain my top speed on it on the flat was 31 mph and downhill 43 mph.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You do know that a restricted ebike is only restricted in terms of the power cuts off at 15 mph, not that it can never be ridden over that pace manually, right? I don’t have one at the moment but when I did have an Orbea Gain my top speed on it on the flat was 31 mph and downhill 43 mph.— Dz1
It was so good that you got rid of it. I wonder why people like you don’t want to keep their restricted ebikes for very long.
Dz1 wrote:
Actually the battery failed and I decided not to replace it for now as my usage needs have changed and I want to get in more unpowered miles for fitness purposes as I build towards some planned summer 100 mile rides, but thanks for assuming that you know all about me and thinking that supports your argument in any way; it doesn’t.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Actually the battery failed and I decided not to replace it for now as my usage needs have changed and I want to get in more unpowered miles for fitness purposes as I build towards some planned summer 100 mile rides, but thanks for assuming that you know all about me and thinking that supports your argument in any way; it doesn’t.— Dz1
So you still have the ebike even though you originally said you didn’t have it any more. Silly me for assuming you were telling the truth.
Dz1 wrote:
Sorry, do you think that’s some sort of gotcha? Getting desperate now, silly boy. No, I don’t have an ebike because I have disposed of the battery and replaced the rear motor wheel with a standard wheel and am using it as my errand and wet weather commute bike as it has great disc brakes and big (35mm) tyres. Hope that’s clear to you now. Why you think that has any relevance to your demand for ebikes to have a higher speed limit remains a mystery.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You’re more likely to reach those speeds using your feet, though.
You can ride an ebike faster
You can ride an ebike that will give you assistance faster than that. You just need to register it, get insurance wear a crash helmet etc. An EAPC is like your free data allowance. If you want more assistance you have to pay.
I’ll stick to my unrestricted
I’ll stick to my unrestricted ebike, thanks.
Dz1 wrote:
Well then be prepared should you kill or injure somebody, even if you’re not primarily at fault, e.g. someone steps in front of you when you have a green light, to go to prison for a substantial time. If your high speed due to your unrestricted power was a contributory factor you could be facing up to a life sentence for manslaughter. Although I don’t have one at the moment I am a big fan of ebikes, but riding one that does not conform to regulations is just as illegal, stupid and irresponsible as riding a motorcycle without a licence and insurance.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well then be prepared should you kill or injure somebody, even if you’re not primarily at fault, e.g. someone steps in front of you when you have a green light, to go to prison for a substantial time. If your high speed due to your unrestricted power was a contributory factor you could be facing up to a life sentence for manslaughter. Although I don’t have one at the moment I am a big fan of ebikes, but riding one that does not conform to regulations is just as illegal, stupid and irresponsible as riding a motorcycle without a licence and insurance. — Dz1
Not really. I like to keep up with traffic as it’s dangerous to be continually overtaken on 20mph roads. The law as it stands right now is stupid and dangerous and I ignore stupid and dangerous laws.
“The law as it stands right
“The law as it stands right now is stupid and dangerous and I ignore stupid and dangerous laws.”
I’m sure that will fly in court.
Hard to tell if you are trolling or just stupid.
Hirsute wrote:
How many times have you rode past a red light? That’s illegal.
What a bunch of hypocrites you all are criticizing me when I bet every one of you has rode past a red light.
Dz1 wrote:
want some sauce for that chip?
Care to comment about your
Care to comment about your hypocrisy?
Going through a red light can
Going through a red light can be stupid, dangerous or stupid and dangerous.
Are you saying the law over red lights is stupid and dangerous? What danger does it pose for you ?
What hypocrisy? The challenge was on your claim that it was dangerous.
Hirsute wrote:
Are you being stupid on purpose? If you criticize me for doing something illegal while most of you ride through a red light then you are hypocrites.
Dz1 wrote:
I still haven’t seen any proof of this, yet. So at the moment, it’s on you to prove that we’re all hypocrites.
And since I have never run a red light, and several other people who have bothered to respond to you have said so too, then I’d say that even without the watertight proof you obviously have – to choose to make such a defamatory comment – you are demonstrably wrong.
Anyone with a camera very
Anyone with a camera very much tends to follow the rules, otherwise you even up incriminating yourself when submitting footage.
If you followed the argument
If you followed the argument you would know that your claim that restricting ebikes is stupid and dangerous was challenged.
You didn’t explain or justify this.
You then changed tack to go on about red lights and claimed hypocrisy. Although if you check back, the points made were derestricting is illegal so claiming it is ok to ignore is legal nonsense. Also that there would be consequences for you.
There are also consequences for running red lights but I don’t think even you would claim red light laws are stupid and dangerous.
Hirsute wrote:
I did explain it actually, but you old farts don’t listen as you just demonstrated.
All you said was “so I can
All you said was “so I can keep up with traffic” then ignored repiles to that.
You haven’t given a clear rational for it and also you fail to accept that people using legal epacs can go faster than 25kph.
Dz1 wrote:
Sounds like you need to sort your road positioning out rather than your speed, if you’re in a situation where you think it’s dangerous to be overtaken, take primary. It’s not dangerous to be overtaken on 20 mph roads in general, most people don’t ride at 20 mph and manage fine. Perhaps if you feel it’s dangerous you need to sort your skills and confidence out rather than breaking the law because you think it’s justified to compensate for your fear of being overtaken. Bicycles are allowed on national speed limit roads; should it be permissible to permit 70 mph ebikes without regulation or licensing so that they can’t be overtaken on those roads?
I could ride in primary and
I could ride in primary and block all the traffic, annoying countless drivers as you suggest. Or I can make some decent progress without being overtaken by buses and push bikes.
Dz1 wrote:
Pedal faster then (you could get a velomobile)… Of course, a few drivers would still “have to” overtake (but those probably do even now).
“Stupid and dangerous” for you maybe? The “dangerous” part for you is some drivers – but having a population able to use derestricted bikes would be elevated risk to all (not in motor vehicles). I’m guessing you wouldn’t be up for a future with lots of folks riding past you on shared paths at > 20mph? Rules around speed are for everyone’s benefit, not just yours.
But hey – if you’re not in the UK you may be able to have your cake exactly how you want and eat it. Here, I think the law is (in the round) about right.
And why stop with using (illegally, if in the UK…) an “ebike” though? You can save yourself being overtaken on any roads with a more powerful motorbike (you don’t sound like you’d be worried about “stupid” rules there either). Or just get a car…
It’s not really possible to
It’s not really possible to go 20mph on shared paths. They are made purposely to be uncomfortable at any speed higher than about 10mph. I try to avoid them for this reason. So you are just scaremongering about a problem that has largely been solved.
Dz1 wrote:
Sounds like you’re only seeing you again.
What is this “problem” you think has been “solved” and how?
I’m not aware of many shared paths which are purposefully designed to limit speeds (the canal path has some speed bumps / barriers – but I don’t consider that cycle infra and avoid it. I think inability to proceed at a good pace is almost always just a side effect of ignoring the requirements for cycling. Or “just stick up a cycling sign on a former footway / footpath and call it done”.
But perhaps this is the case near you?
I use a group of such paths in Edinburgh very frequently. (These former railway lines). I usually make good progress *. I (thankfully occasionally) have someone on an electric motorbike fly by at what seems to be double that. Not convinced they’re troubled by “uncomfortable”. It’s not exactly pleasant on a bike and would be really unpleasant as a pedestrian.
Of course it might not be in the lifetime of most in the UK but the actual “solution” is provision of adequate separate cycling and walking spaces. Doesn’t seem to be slowing this person down (and I think they’re just human-powered)… Probably not needed in the countryside – do like the Dutch and just build cycle paths.
* Average is very variable. I think it’s usually faster than on the roads (and certainly more pleasant) – where you can sprint but then be sat at a light for a minute or more. Unless you think those laws are stupid too?
Evenings / nights often empty in which case it’s whatever speed I go – I’m not power-assisted. It’s mostly pretty quiet so though I do slow down somewhat for any pedestrians I’d guess 12-15mph average? Occasionally there’s lots of folks, or kids or dog walkers about – then it can be “any advance on walking pace is good”.
Dz1 wrote:
I don’t know if they’re purposely made to be uncomfortable at speed, but most of the ones that I’ve seen aren’t suitable due to the mixed modes (e.g. peds, dogs, children etc) and quite often poor sight lines. I’m just an acoustic cyclist, but I avoid shared paths if I’m trying to go quickly.
The rantyhighwayman says they
The rantyhighwayman says they should be finished using a special machine to ensure a smooth surface. Only the cost of specifying this means it is often not used.
Hirsute wrote:
It’s not so much the surface, but the bumps from tree roots that can make them uncomfortable to use. The other major issue is where they have a stop-start design such as ceding priority to side road traffic etc.
Not that council / highways
Not that council / highways construction is always stellar quality, but I think it would be great if we didn’t need to rely so much on things like overly-cheaply reclaimed spaces (all for reuse but that means cheaper but not free…), volunteer labour (like Sustrans) and charitable endeavours (some funding and making land available).
Meanwhile here’s how they build (resurface) where cycling is just another mode of transport …(noting this is still “cycle lane” but the plan is for the road to change to an 18mph street – possibly “cycle street” in future).
I think they’ve also managed to work out trees and how to prevent their roots quickly breaking up paved surfaces. Although trees will have their way eventually – and some folks think that’s fair…
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well then be prepared should you kill or injure somebody, even if you’re not primarily at fault, e.g. someone steps in front of you when you have a green light, to go to prison for a substantial time. If your high speed due to your unrestricted power was a contributory factor you could be facing up to a life sentence for manslaughter. Although I don’t have one at the moment I am a big fan of ebikes, but riding one that does not conform to regulations is just as illegal, stupid and irresponsible as riding a motorcycle without a licence and insurance. — Dz1
It just occured to me what utter hypocrites you all are. How many times have you all rode past red lights? That’s dangerous and illegal but I bet you all do it because I see it all the time from every type of cyclist.
Dz1 wrote:
Well then be prepared should you kill or injure somebody, even if you’re not primarily at fault, e.g. someone steps in front of you when you have a green light, to go to prison for a substantial time. If your high speed due to your unrestricted power was a contributory factor you could be facing up to a life sentence for manslaughter. Although I don’t have one at the moment I am a big fan of ebikes, but riding one that does not conform to regulations is just as illegal, stupid and irresponsible as riding a motorcycle without a licence and insurance. — Rendel Harris
It just occured to me what utter hypocrites you all are. How many times have you all rode past red lights? That’s dangerous and illegal but I bet you all do it because I see it all the time from every type of cyclist.— Dz1
Past or through?
I go past red lights all the time as they indicate that traffic on opposing routes should stop. They mostly do but usually there are those that accelerate on amber to get through and those that just blatently sail through on red.
If you want you can come and sit at any on the junctions or even the pedestrian crossings local to me, I’ll give you a comfy chair, a note pad and pencil, I’ll bring you coffee and cakes all you need to do is keep tally of the type of vehicles that go through red lights.
Once you have the facts we can have a chat about who the perpetrators are and how the risk acutally pans out.
Just let me know.
BikingBud wrote:
You must be the only cyclist in the world who never goes through red lights. That is what I meant and congrats if that is you. The rest here are hypocrites.
Dz1 wrote:
No they aren’t, I don’t, my wife doesn’t and as a rough estimate I would say 80% of my cycling mates don’t. Certainly lots of people do (in cars as well as on bikes), but lots of people don’t. In any case it has not the slightest relevance to the fact that you think you have a right to break the law by riding an unrestricted illegal electric motorcycle.
So you did mean through.
So you did mean through. Thanks for clarifying.
No congratulations required as a cyclist and motorcyclist I congratulate myself frequently that I have not impeded or endangered other road users and hopefully remain aware enough to react to those who do not show me the same courtesy.
Now tell me what cakes you like and I can arrange the seat, got one of those nice folding chairs with a leg rest and a coffee cup holder and we can address what actually occurs and what people perceive.
We can then set about, us together, realigning all those others that seem to consider that all cyclists go through red lights, all of the time.
And perhaps the more important aspect, how much that affects the cyclists own safety (quite happy with the Darwin principles) versus the wholly differing magnitude of the impact on their safety by other road users going through red lights.
BikingBud wrote:
It’s hard to believe you all are not hypocrites because where I live nearly all cyclists go through the red lights. Maybe demographics play a part. Sounds like you are an older person and that may play a part.
Dz1 wrote:
So you did mean through. Thanks for clarifying.
No congratulations required as a cyclist and motorcyclist I congratulate myself frequently that I have not impeded or endangered other road users and hopefully remain aware enough to react to those who do not show me the same courtesy.
Now tell me what cakes you like and I can arrange the seat, got one of those nice folding chairs with a leg rest and a coffee cup holder and we can address what actually occurs and what people perceive.
We can then set about, us together, realigning all those others that seem to consider that all cyclists go through red lights, all of the time.
And perhaps the more important aspect, how much that affects the cyclists own safety (quite happy with the Darwin principles) versus the wholly differing magnitude of the impact on their safety by other road users going through red lights.
— Dz1 It’s hard to believe you all are not hypocrites because where I live nearly all cyclists go through the red lights. Maybe demographics play a part. Sounds like you are an older person and that may play a part.— BikingBud
Bit ageist…
brooksby wrote:
I’ve been insulted many times on here but you had nothing to say about that.
Perhaps because you’re not an
Perhaps because you’re not an entire class of people.
It’s nothing compared to what
It’s nothing compared to what I’ve been called here on this toxic website. This place gives cyclists a bad name.
If you don’t want to come and
Hard to believe because it doesn’t fit within your bias and prejudice and pre-disposition for sterotyping?
If you don’t want to come and sit in my location perhaps you can share your location and we can sit together there.
I’ll bring 2 chairs and a flask, some cakes, perhaps even jaffa cakes and we can swing the latern, trade prejudices and maybe use those prejudices to categorise (stereotype?) red light jumpers where you live.
Hell even if you don’t want to join me, give me a what3words of your lights and I’ll do the survey on my own.
Perhaps just so I can bring a large enough note pad, could you tell me:
Around city of London it’s a
Around city of London it’s a fair complaint against people on bikes, which covers all yhe deliveroos, tourists on hire bikes, commuting cyclists etc.
rest of the UK it’s much much less common. And the prevalence of motor vehicles jumping lights increases, often directly in proportion to enforcement action on it
There are pedestrian crossings I use in my town where they’ve had to put a 20sec delay on all lights red, before the crossing goes green, just so you aren’t walking across a road and there are still cars being driven across at red.
they’ve had to put a 20sec
they’ve had to put a 20sec delay on all lights red, before the crossing goes green, just so you aren’t walking across a road and there are still cars being driven across at red
They try all sorts of tricks on the A6 at Garstang to appease the ‘amber: put your foot down; red: put your foot down harder’ A6 traffic which is prioritised, including long delays before the lower priority lights go green. What they don’t want to try is penalising RLJs, because ‘everybody does it’- I’ve never yet seen a cyclist, though. This works passably, until there is an incident on the M6 and all the traffic is diverted down the A6. These isolated lights (there are no others for miles) then bring the entire local area to a standstill through all these ‘safety’ delays, except for cyclists. Perhaps what is required is a large notice at each set of lights where it applies: “We REALLY mean it- don’t go through on red!”
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
BikingBud wrote:
I go past red lights all the time. All those ones on the backs of cars sitting waiting in queues that I’m filtering past.
mdavidford wrote:
That’s why we can’t have cycling infra – because you are undertaking cars! What you should do instead is get an electric motorcycle then illegally ride it on the streets so you can get to the next set of lights faster and then patiently wait in the queue at the lights like
all themost of the other drivers of motor vehicles.That way you won’t give all cyclists a bad name. Nor will you do when you knock over a pedestrian or cyclist while illegally using your electric motorcycle (possibly a greater injury due to the added momentum / kinetic energy compared to an unpowered bike or EAPC). Because obviously people will be able to identify you’re just some illegal motorcylist.
Did I get that right?
Pub bike wrote:
I will stick to my unrestricted ebike.
I have a legal ebike MTB with
I have a legal ebike MTB with a Bosch motor (which is not derestricted) and to be fair there are times when I can easily reach speeds of 25+mph. Most of the riders on the big frame ebikes I see on the trails are 50/60+ years of age and always seem well behaved to me. Conversely when out walking the dogs I have been passed at speed by unpowered bikes without so much of a ding on their bell or anything. My point is it’s mostly about behaviour and I suspect most of the issues are happening in urban areas and committed by certain types😉
llm wrote:
Yes: behaviour.
Behaviour and the law.
If the electric vehicle has more than a specified amount of power, can go above a specified speed, has a throttle, then it is illegal regardless of how polite the rider is or whether they have a bell fitted. IANAL.
You’re stating the obvious. I
You’re stating the obvious. I’m aware of the law. I’m simply saying I don’t have an issue with most of the riders that 𝗜 see and as such I wouldn’t be reporting them or making a fuss.
Well, that’s all good for you
Well, that’s all good for you. But where are you writing about? You mention “on the trails” and “walking the dogs” and “most issues are happening in urban areas”.
Well … yeah? Most people (I’m one) live in urban areas in the UK (82.9% in England and 83% in Scotland in 2019 according to the governments, and growing), and those are also the places with the highest population densities and most contested (for various uses) spaces.
That’s also where you’ll find all the delivery businesses and their “not employees go speak to our lawyers” contractors mostly with some kind of electrical assistance.
In Edinburgh I think that most of the delivery folk are behaving reasonably, but there has been a very rapid expansion of this business so “we’ll see”. The machine doesn’t know the difference … so perhaps we should be actually policing the law here? Again – a small issue compared to motorists, and I’m not aware of a big increase in casualties although I’ve seen at least one in the papers locally. But given there’s even less enforcement than for motorists (and that is very light…) what motivates “better behaviour”? Not the companies paying the money – these are just contractors!
But surely those riders that
But surely those riders that you see (50s/60s on eMTBs) aren’t on illegal bikes, so nothing to report anyway? Unless I’ve misunderstood what you mean by “big frame ebikes”.
There are several of these
There are several of these typical nutter fantasists on this topic- sometimes they ham it up a bit too much because they don’t know much about cycling. Sometimes we get the claims about people losing count of the times their wheelchair has been hurled over by terror-cyclists, sometimes it’s just a campaign for faster legal EAPCs because only cissies are prepared to put up with 25kph and the UK and EU are thereby laughing stocks, sometimes it’s ‘pff! I regulary propel my totally legal EAPC for miles at well over 25kph and anyway the real problem is due to the riders of the unpowered bikes terrorising pedestrians’ etc. etc. In the end, they’re just sad nutters.
Hahaha. What I was actually
Hahaha. What I was actually saying was that it’s the behaviour that is the issue, not the bike, but you carry on getting flustered 😆
wtjs getting flustered. Umm,
wtjs getting flustered. Umm, you’ve not been here long have you.
ll the ones I’ve seen are
ll the ones I’ve seen are definitely on illegal ebikes. The brand names are a dead give away too.
I have a legal ebike MTB with
I have a legal ebike MTB with a Bosch motor (which is not derestricted) and … I can easily reach speeds of 25+mph
Wow! Another super-athlete on here, unless he’s talking about a steep downhill, with an axe to grind about allowing ever faster legal EAPCs. Is this yet another of them?
If you think being able to
If you think being able to pedal to 25mph puts me in the category of “super athlete” maybe you should train more🤣
Train?!
Train?! That’s something to catch to go places for a nice potter by bike!
Awww what a lovely sense of
Awww what a lovely sense of humour. Anyway some words have multiple meanings in case you didn’t realise🤨.
llm wrote:
If you’re claiming that you can ride a mid motor Bosch e-MTB – lightest versions around 20kg – on the flat at 25 mph that certainly would put you in a pretty high category; assuming you weigh a fairly average 80 kg that speed would require around 430W which is only 20W short of Pogacar’s 20-minute maximum.
How on earth did this thread
How on earth did this thread get up to 129 posts (at the time I’m writing)?
Very little of substance has really been written; all it seems to be is a newbie with an electric motorbike getting their back up every time anyone suggests it might be illegal and responding with a lot of “Yeah, but whatabout red lights you hypocrites?!”.
They’re not a PBU, in my opinion, because most of our PBU were more articulate.
It’s more like they’re just on the wrong website…
brooksby wrote:
Perhaps – though they had all the touchiness of some and have immediately started complaining the site is “toxic” and that they’ve been subjected to name-calling. (Clearly the rest of the internet is a much more cuddly place than I heard about!) Weren’t there a few previously who spent most of their time decrying all the other posters / the site and spend a lot of posts demanding other people should be kicked off because they objected to someone saying they were trolling?
Returning to the more substantial, it seems clear there is a high incidence of cyclists ignoring the red lights at some places (in London – I do see a few here in Edinburgh but it’s rarer). As Ogmios spotted – delivery moped light-predictors are certainly a thing. I wouldn’t wish to accuse our … new acquaintance of that though, just because they think another law is stupid.
I generally disprove of going through on red – for anyone. That’s hypocritical as I have not always e.g. waited at temporary traffic lights until a motor vehicle appears and gets recognised. Now I’m a bit more pedantic and try to be off my bike on footways / taking a shortcut. OTOH I think – in the absence of pedestrians (why I generally disapprove…) – as a cyclist trying to cross a junction against the signal the danger is much more to yourself than others.
FWIW I think adding a substantial mass and increased speed by using an electric motorbike does increase the danger to others. Harm minimisation compared to a car perhaps? (I have only ever once seen a car on the main path network in Edinburgh – motorbikes, electric or ICE – much more common).
OTOH people have argued to ignore either because “safety” for themselves. (But what happened to “look out for others“, people?)
chrisonabike wrote:
Perhaps – though they had all the touchiness of some and have immediately started complaining the site is “toxic” and that they’ve been subjected to name-calling. — brooksby
Actually very reminiscent of thisismyusername who was banned as that and many other personae – Ledner Sirrah, leftisforlosers and so on. Had a habit of complaining about the toxicity of this website and saying they were off and then appearing a few days later with a new name. I wonder if the recent appearance of a couple of new (or at least newly christened) trolls has emboldened them?
But which is which?
But which is which?
Rendel Harris wrote:
I don’t know about this Dz1 chap, but there’s another contrarian appeared on the site recently who reminds me very much of Our Martin.
chrisonabike wrote:
This. There is a set of (permanent) lights I can think of that just don’t recognise me on a bike, but given that I go out early precisely to avoid motor traffic, I’m not going to wait there until a car arrives. But I try to do the crossing on foot.
You underestimate how many
You underestimate how many butt hurt people there are out there who don’t like the idea of anyone having a whale of a time on an unrestricted ebike. It’s none of their business but they just can’t help themselves.
Dz1 wrote:
Wait – I thought this was about safety and being considerate of others (not name-calling etc.)? Don’t tell me it’s actually been me, myself, and I all along!
Nobody would object to you pushing your bike to a field and having a whale of a time. (Maybe not the local park if it’s busy though – and may be byelaws there).
There is also a ebiketips sister site if that’s really your thing (but mostly EAPCs), but it sounds like you might make faster progress on visordown.com (without a helmet?)
Dz1 wrote:
Except, as pretty much everybody has already said to you, riding an unrestricted electric motorbike on the public highway is against the law. Lawbreaking is kind of everybody’s business, isn’t it?
brooksby wrote:
You and others here are wasting your time. Police have better things to do than bother with someone going 20mph instead of 15mph. So you can cry all you want. It makes no difference to me.
Dz1 wrote:
Erm, except this is an article about them doing just that.
It’s the business of every
It’s the business of every road user.
You’ve increased risk for others but don’t care.
Dz1 wrote:
When I was riding from Euston station down towards Blackfriars last week at morning rush-hour on a hearteningly packed cycle superhighway and a twat on an unrestricted ebike came slaloming through the crowds at around 30 mph they probably were having a whale of a time, but the huge number of cyclists they put in danger most certainly weren’t and it very much was their business.
brooksby wrote:
Though we had one whose language skills improved dramatically over about 10 posts if I recall.
brooksby wrote:
I was wondering whether this was going to be a 100 post argument, or the full 500…