Dangerous cycling bill introduced to HoL with e-bike and e-scooter inclusion

[The utility cyclist]

e-bikes/e-scooters should be limited to 12mph, this is more than adequate, it will also increase range and not reduce the users ability to go faster under their own steam. 'Free' speed/propulsion and how this affects the way people think seems to have been completely missed here, there's no surprise that e-bikes have seen significant rises in deaths in Germany and NL (the two biggest users) and the speed/acceleration is a contributory factor.

I think the limit should be increased to 30mph so we'll split the difference and call it 21.

12mph is a waste of space.
You either want low power electric vehicles or you don't.
What you seem to want is a ban but want to sound "reasonable" by simply advocating a limit so low nobody would want one, essentially turning them into toys.

Outright free speed as we see already with e-cyclists and moped users etc equals more incidents, even worse when that free speed is given to people not used to it, don't need it and can't handle the acceleration nor grasp the braking distances of speeds they were unable to attain previously. For the existing faster cyclists, wether it be 12mph or 15.5 it makes little difference in enjoyment or ability to get places, it does increase the range.

There is no downside to reducing the max speed, I'm not banning anything at all, I'm suggesting this makes it safer wich is primarily the main aspect, it would be more acceptable at that lower speed thus making it more accessible, more usable for the types of people that e-bikes are supposedly aimed at as it allows people to go further with assistance.

That isn't motorists by the way as e-bikes have not changed the numbers of drivers in any way shape or form in Germany or NL, in fact in the period since e-bikes have become a big deal, both these countries have seen cycling stagnate (NL) and in Germany's case, go backward.

[fastpedaller]

My question to everyone is … what is the average speed of transport in a city? Certainly less than the 15mph limit. Limiting (all unregistered, unlicensed etc) vehicles to 15mph would seem sensible and wouldn't lower the average speed at all. If these electric vehicles were used by all (or nearly all) there probably wouldn't be any traffic congestion.

[kwackers]

even worse when that free speed is given to people not used to it, don't need it and can't handle the acceleration nor grasp the braking distances of speeds they were unable to attain previously

What patronising nonsense.
You can use the same argument for keeping people who've never cycled off bicycles.

For the existing faster cyclists, wether it be 12mph or 15.5 it makes little difference in enjoyment or ability to get places, it does increase the range.

It makes a huge difference, just because you can't conceive of a use case for yourself please don't assume the rest of us are incapable of figuring one out.
Indeed, some of us have even tried so know what we're talking about.

There is no downside to reducing the max speed

Except of course there is, seriously how can you write that with a straight face?

[Oldjohnw]

even worse when that free speed is given to people not used to it, don't need it and can't handle the acceleration nor grasp the braking distances of speeds they were unable to attain previously

What patronising nonsense.
You can use the same argument for keeping people who've never cycled off bicycles.

Many, if not most, users of ebikes are former cyclists who know all about handling bikes and calculating braking requirements. In the main, they will be going no faster than they ever did.

[Nigel]

After a lot of reading here and elsewhere, as well as riding many, many miles with the ladywife on her electric bike, I find myself tending to agree with either a lower assist limit or keeping the current one. Anything with more assisted speed is becoming a motorbike. If you want to go fast, get a Honda or perhaps a Kwacker.

I think there's a huge difference between a motorbike and a bicycle (even an electric one) - probably at least 80kg

At the smaller moped sizes, taking one "old petrol moped" as an example, the Puch comes in at about 85lbs or 40kg. The first electric moped I looked up, listed on ebay, was 42kg.

The existing motorcycle/moped license categories seem to cover what you're asking for - the "AM" category (up to 28mph, "moped") comes free with most car licenses, though a CBT test (basics of how to stop it, and ride around a few traffic cones) may be required if your car license is post 2001. The need for a CBT came in because the then government felt that people ought to show they could control a vehicle of that speed before just riding it.

[…. lots of stuff about specific commute between chosen home and chosen place of work. ……….]

So as a society we choose the direction and it seems to me that direction is cars.
When even cyclists are hostile to ebikes and escooters apparently preferring folk to use cars you've got to ask yourself what exactly is their take on the future of transport.

I currently own 3 'broken' bikes and no working bikes.
TBH I'm currently of the opinion I can't be bothered fixing them. I get plenty of exercise in other ways and I value my time too much to spend it riding a bike on a journey I can do in better ways.

You are entitled to occupy the road with your car if you wish. Or you could use an AM category moped, be it electric or petrol.

I've no problem with e-bikes: I quite like them as they're getting people out and about. They're bikes, with a minimal set of safety standards, no licensing, no requirement for insurance, no MOT. So, they should run at bicycle speeds: for the vast majority of cyclists this is way below 15mph.


- Nigel

[kwackers]

<opinion snipped>

All I can say is the demand is there, the vehicles already exist and lots of other countries allow them to run legally.

Small mindedness seems to be the order of the day - in fact there's an old thread on the tea shop from several years ago from when ebikes where first touted as a 'thing'. It's well worth a read, you'll find all the same arguments but on steroids.
Obviously some folk have been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st given how attitudes have softened, fingers crossed they continue.

[The utility cyclist]

even worse when that free speed is given to people not used to it, don't need it and can't handle the acceleration nor grasp the braking distances of speeds they were unable to attain previously

What patronising nonsense.
You can use the same argument for keeping people who've never cycled off bicycles.

For the existing faster cyclists, wether it be 12mph or 15.5 it makes little difference in enjoyment or ability to get places, it does increase the range.

It makes a huge difference, just because you can't conceive of a use case for yourself please don't assume the rest of us are incapable of figuring one out.
Indeed, some of us have even tried so know what we're talking about.

There is no downside to reducing the max speed

Except of course there is, seriously how can you write that with a straight face?

So you balance enjoyment over safety, got it.

[kwackers]

So you balance enjoyment over safety, got it.

Except of course you don't get anything...

How dangerous are ebikes - I mean seriously, how many miles do you have to travel on one before there's a likelihood you'll die?

In particular how far do I have to travel to be a threat to others? Because lets be honest most of your diatribe is about folk hurting themselves because they can't control the massive power an ebike has and I don't know about you or anyone else but I'm more than happy to put any risk to myself in my own hands.
You may disagree, perhaps you'd like others to ascertain the risk for you and make decisions based for you?

If we really want to be daft then why not ban bicycles?
I mean folk do actually hurt themselves on them and even if it's not their fault there's no doubt that a bicycle is a much bigger risk to ones health than a car - even you can see that yes?

Or we could be sensible and accept that all motion carries risk and ebikes (and bicycles) whilst having more risk than others in reality carry so little we don't really need to make exceptions.

(Or you could just admit you hate ebikes rather than spending all your time trying to justify your view.)

[fullupandslowingdown]

my suggestion about raising the maximum assisted electrically speed was based on giving someone like me or you who is (or was) capable of accelerating zero to 25 in a few seconds under our own steam, but cannot repeatedly do so time after time after time when crossing a big city. It's been a claim ever since Ballantine's original book that a cyclist who can keep pace with most traffic on a city road, is safer simply because they don't overtaken before the next red light.

Do forumites think that, actually a cyclist staying ahead of the pack is in more danger because car drivers will be even more aggresive than if they have to overtake before been passed by the cyclist at the next red light. OK, might not be relevant where there is a proper cycle lane, but on other roads, particularly those with 2 or more lanes which tend to result in the cars "trapped" in lane 1, bunching behind a slower cyclist until there's a gap in lane 2 to move across to to overtake the cyclist, only for the cyclist to undertake them at the next lights.

If we say that all electric bikes except those that are actually electric motorbikes like the zero, are restricted to 12mph, and if as we get older and fatter lose our ability to traffic jam above around 15mph, then that means unless motor vehicles are also speed restricted, we will always have that point of conflict due to our difference in speed. Which means we probably need cycle lanes everywhere with their attendent problems such as at junctions.

I'm just thinking that we are in danger of becoming out evolved on the roads. Instead, lets evolve, lets see if we can get sensible concessions such as assisted electric power up to 30mph even if it means statutary cycle training for all. After all what is really wrong with that except that some of might fail With statutary training, we can then say to motorists that's one less argument they have against cyclists. They like to say we're uninsured, untaxed, untrained and unregulated. Well taxation is a misnomer because thousands of motor cars have zero rates of VED either because they are electric or vintage. Whats wrong with insurance, especially if it helps us with legal fees in defending ourselves in court.

[Cugel]

my suggestion about raising the maximum assisted electrically speed was based on giving someone like me or you who is (or was) capable of accelerating zero to 25 in a few seconds under our own steam, but cannot repeatedly do so time after time after time when crossing a big city. It's been a claim ever since Ballantine's original book that a cyclist who can keep pace with most traffic on a city road, is safer simply because they don't overtaken before the next red light.

Do forumites think that, actually a cyclist staying ahead of the pack is in more danger because car drivers will be even more aggresive than if they have to overtake before been passed by the cyclist at the next red light. OK, might not be relevant where there is a proper cycle lane, but on other roads, particularly those with 2 or more lanes which tend to result in the cars "trapped" in lane 1, bunching behind a slower cyclist until there's a gap in lane 2 to move across to to overtake the cyclist, only for the cyclist to undertake them at the next lights.

If we say that all electric bikes except those that are actually electric motorbikes like the zero, are restricted to 12mph, and if as we get older and fatter lose our ability to traffic jam above around 15mph, then that means unless motor vehicles are also speed restricted, we will always have that point of conflict due to our difference in speed. Which means we probably need cycle lanes everywhere with their attendent problems such as at junctions.

I'm just thinking that we are in danger of becoming out evolved on the roads. Instead, lets evolve, lets see if we can get sensible concessions such as assisted electric power up to 30mph even if it means statutary cycle training for all. After all what is really wrong with that except that some of might fail With statutary training, we can then say to motorists that's one less argument they have against cyclists. They like to say we're uninsured, untaxed, untrained and unregulated. Well taxation is a misnomer because thousands of motor cars have zero rates of VED either because they are electric or vintage. Whats wrong with insurance, especially if it helps us with legal fees in defending ourselves in court.

One might make a reasonable argument that the "accident" rates (or rather, the death & injuries from them) are low because the average cycling speeds are low and the weight of the bikes are low. It's momentum that does the damage in RTAs.

Of course, some cyclists can average 25-30mph (very few, mind). But they get to do so via long miles and the associated experience. Generally they learn to deal with bicycle high speed by the time they're fit enough to go that fast. Not in all cases, mind. I know a number of racey lads who are "accident prone".

If the maximum speed at which e-bike assistance is available were to go to 30mph, most of those owning one would do .... 30mph, most or a lot of the time. From day-one of ownership. Would accident rates go up as a consequence? Dutch experiences seem to suggest so. Inexperienced ole gits of the born-again-cyclist variety splash their boomer-cash on a big e-bike chipped to do 30mph or more and then go out to have their "accident".

The syndrome is well known in motorcycling circles. "Born-again bikers".

Not so say that 30mph or even 40 mph lightweight e-motorcycles that can also be pedalled shouldn't be allowed and sold. But, as with other dangerous technologies, under some form of licensing and insurance scheme as you suggest. Plenty of testing to get that license.

And perhaps a spike on the handlebars rather than helmets and other unsafe of non-safe aids inducing a foolish sense of invulnerability.

Cugel

[kwackers]

The general consensus on this forum seems to be that if you're young and fit you can go as fast as you're able - that's fine (just like rich people can buy super fast cars - that's fine too).

But don't even think of being able to travel at the same speed as a moderately fit cyclist.
If that's the case then bicycles aren't for you they're too dangerous...
And if a bicycle doesn't cut it for you then tough, buy a car.

It's madness if you ask me.
We have the chance to provide realistic alternatives to cars and we're too busy extrapolating data to suit our preconceptions or presumably being offended that we're being emasculated because a granny might tootle past us on a hill.