Is 250w enough power for modest speed up steep hills

[Jdsk]

Yes. As always in the real world there will be lots of compromises. And often the least worst compromise will change over time.

You have within their skill set to control in the factors but I'd put all of the issues related to the safety of others pretty high in comparison to the wishes of the user of the device. (See cargo transporters above.)

Jonathan

[Cugel]

I don't agree that the intended purpose was to allow riders to keep up with a lot more able friends. The answer to that is to get better friends who make allowances for you.

Rather what speed is a reasonable speed to allow the less able to have a reasonable cycling exsperiance and be a useful mode of transport and of course be within their skill set to control.

Many ebike riders have the reactions of fighter pilots, you can't reasonably set the limit to accommodate them ,some are a complete liability in anything but a large empty field. They really shouldn't have them at all.

In the middle ? That sounds like 25kph, it's a compromise some are very frustrated some a great danger to themselves and others. I can't think of a better way other than some sort of licence restrictions

Well, your view seems to be centred on the idea that, although we can't control the cyclists with more or less of the cycling skill-set to restrict their behaviours to "what jois believes is safe" we can make an almost empty gesture at doing so by imposing an arbitrary limit on the maximum assistance speed of e-bikes.

I do have some sympathy with the idea that cyclists, like other transport users employing faster-than-a-bare-human devices, should be tested for skill and even licensed. (I feel the same way about pet owners). As you no doubt know, such suggestions are regarded as both unworkabler (too bureaucratic) but also likely to put people off cycling. WHilst I'd be very happy to put a great number of people off from owning a pet, I don't feel the same about cycling as, overall, it's a relatively low risk (for the cyclists and for others) activity.

I'll make two more points:

One is that the 25kph assistance limit may be putting off many would-be e-bike riders because of the 25kph limit. A significant number want to go out cycling with all of their cycling friends, not just the few who are as slow as them. Nor do they want to make a larger group of their fitter riding companions have to wait for them on every bit of road where the normal speed would be significantly above 25kph. And, going out by themselves, they'd like to be able to do the 50 miles in 3 hours that they used to do rather than take more hours or go less far, all at the price of being much more tired than they would have been in their prime. Why not allow them to retain their historical cycling abilities - but no more?

Two is that the law regarding 25mph assisted speed limit for e-bikes is being widely flouted, not just by young hooligans (or old ones) with 750 watt motors but by otherwise reasonable and harmless folk who find the 25kph assisted limit is spoiling their could-be-better cycling experience for no good reason at all. They just want to be able to cycle as well as they used to do or as well as other cyclists. It's not a good idea to have laws so bad that they are widely flouted. This brings the law into disrepute.

But no, I haven't illegally sped-up my own e-bike and never will. Happily I don't feel the need to. My wife feels a yen to be able to keep up with my 35kph on the flat but she's very law-abiding too.

Cugel

[Cugel]

Moreover, "studies" so often embed the answers they would prefer in the questions and the structure & language in which they're posed. I know you don't agree, but my own, er, experience is that many of the self-claiming scientific academic disciplines that generate such studies are far from scientific in their outlook and conduct. They're more like philosophers re-imagined. In fact, "imagination" plays rather a large part!

There is no evidence-based position that insists that anything labelled as a study is always better than personal experience. Studies should always be assessed for their quality. Bad studies should be ignored. The methods of sorting studies are steadily improving.

But that's an enormous way from the assertion that good studies can't provide better guidance than personal experience.

Among the many things that should be studied in this debate are the effects on health of eBikes (looking good so far) and the effects of eBIkes and eScooters and other micromobility devices in shared use spaces (and if I'm wrong about that I'll change my views).

Jonathan

I agree that there can certainly be studies that are better constructed and conducted than others. And of course they can provide insights (sometimes into the mentality of the study-maker rather than the studied, mind).

But wanting every tiny aspect of everyday life to be "studied" in this way does, you have to admit, seek some sort of special status for such studies, when everyday unstructured experience can so often be the better mode, not least because it's continuous with living and looks at a far wider context than most studies. And real life experience is based on real life activities rather than on artificial set-ups, limited experimental constructs and the need to ask people what they think or feel when their responses will be far from what they actually think or feel.

The study is necessarily very limited in what is studied and in the conclusion-types it's interested in. This is what tends to lead to even good studies acquiring far more status with, and influence on, policy-making than they deserve.

Cugel

[peterb]

I'll make two more points:

One is that the 25kph assistance limit may be putting off many would-be e-bike riders because of the 25kph limit. A significant number want to go out cycling with all of their cycling friends, not just the few who are as slow as them. Nor do they want to make a larger group of their fitter riding companions have to wait for them on every bit of road where the normal speed would be significantly above 25kph. And, going out by themselves, they'd like to be able to do the 50 miles in 3 hours that they used to do rather than take more hours or go less far, all at the price of being much more tired than they would have been in their prime. Why not allow them to retain their historical cycling abilities - but no more?

Two is that the law regarding 25mph assisted speed limit for e-bikes is being widely flouted, not just by young hooligans (or old ones) with 750 watt motors but by otherwise reasonable and harmless folk who find the 25kph assisted limit is spoiling their could-be-better cycling experience for no good reason at all. They just want to be able to cycle as well as they used to do or as well as other cyclists. It's not a good idea to have laws so bad that they are widely flouted. This brings the law into disrepute.

But no, I haven't illegally sped-up my own e-bike and never will. Happily I don't feel the need to. My wife feels a yen to be able to keep up with my 35kph on the flat but she's very law-abiding too.

Cugel

Well put!

[jois]

I don't agree that the intended purpose was to allow riders to keep up with a lot more able friends. The answer to that is to get better friends who make allowances for you.

Rather what speed is a reasonable speed to allow the less able to have a reasonable cycling exsperiance and be a useful mode of transport and of course be within their skill set to control.

Many ebike riders have the reactions of fighter pilots, you can't reasonably set the limit to accommodate them ,some are a complete liability in anything but a large empty field. They really shouldn't have them at all.

In the middle ? That sounds like 25kph, it's a compromise some are very frustrated some a great danger to themselves and others. I can't think of a better way other than some sort of licence restrictions

Well, your view seems to be centred on the idea that, although we can't control the cyclists with more or less of the cycling skill-set to restrict their behaviours to "what jois believes is safe" we can make an almost empty gesture at doing so by imposing an arbitrary limit on the maximum assistance speed of e-bikes.

I do have some sympathy with the idea that cyclists, like other transport users employing faster-than-a-bare-human devices, should be tested for skill and even licensed. (I feel the same way about pet owners). As you no doubt know, such suggestions are regarded as both unworkabler (too bureaucratic) but also likely to put people off cycling. WHilst I'd be very happy to put a great number of people off from owning a pet, I don't feel the same about cycling as, overall, it's a relatively low risk (for the cyclists and for others) activity.

I'll make two more points:

One is that the 25kph assistance limit may be putting off many would-be e-bike riders because of the 25kph limit. A significant number want to go out cycling with all of their cycling friends, not just the few who are as slow as them. Nor do they want to make a larger group of their fitter riding companions have to wait for them on every bit of road where the normal speed would be significantly above 25kph. And, going out by themselves, they'd like to be able to do the 50 miles in 3 hours that they used to do rather than take more hours or go less far, all at the price of being much more tired than they would have been in their prime. Why not allow them to retain their historical cycling abilities - but no more?

Two is that the law regarding 25mph assisted speed limit for e-bikes is being widely flouted, not just by young hooligans (or old ones) with 750 watt motors but by otherwise reasonable and harmless folk who find the 25kph assisted limit is spoiling their could-be-better cycling experience for no good reason at all. They just want to be able to cycle as well as they used to do or as well as other cyclists. It's not a good idea to have laws so bad that they are widely flouted. This brings the law into disrepute.

But no, I haven't illegally sped-up my own e-bike and never will. Happily I don't feel the need to. My wife feels a yen to be able to keep up with my 35kph on the flat but she's very law-abiding too.

Cugel

The topic in hand is swerving greatly. Most of our legal limits are arbitary. The speed limits are. The drink drive limit is, the age of consent is. Someone thought let's stick a pin in and choose that. Ok maybe a little more thought than that but not much.

I'm resisting getting an ebike because at my age it's use it or loose it, for good probably. I've seen a few good folk give in to the temptation of recapturing their youth nd with in a few months there non assisted distance has dropped from say 20 miles to 5 . What ever benifits they are deriving from it doesn't include fitness.

They may be kidding themselves they are 25 but their physical condition is going through the floor

In my exsperiance the reason why people don't cycle in general including the many that have a seldom used bike in the spare bedroom is because they don't want to ,or rather they would rather do something else. I doubt many of them are basing this on being unable to keep up with a peliton .

And why do we want to encourage people to take non excercise exercise for fun whilst simitainously increasing co2 emissions. There seems no sense in that at all. Go walk round the park

Ebikes that replace another form of transport are ecologically sound. Ripping round the lanes as a day out isnt if the alternative was stopping in and watching the football

[Nearholmer]

The conundrum isn’t roads, it’s shared-use spaces, so any proposal to up the assisted speed limit really needs to be coupled with an answer to that.

I do think that a sophisticated ‘human power emulator’ plus other clever algorithms to apply the limits to the combination of human and machine effort might cut the mustard, but that brings us back to the question of whether there is critical mass of opinion in favour of that across the EU, and it would all boil back to enforcement even if such a thing were introduced.

As a sort of BTW, any human power emulator would have to have a curve based on some population of humans, and if it was based on either the entire population, or even the entire population of people who ride a pushbike more than once a week, it may well disappoint ageing club cyclists trying to keep up with fit young club cyclists on road rides, because that population is so unrepresentative of “ordinary people” that it might not get chosen as the benchmark.

The ultimate answer might be either to buy a moped, or accept that even the fittest slow down with age.

[PH]

I'll make two more points:

Why should this minority you chose to speak for set the regulations for us all? They'll be outnumbered by deliveroo riders hundreds to one, thousands to one if counting miles, why not base the regulations around what they want? (That isn't a serious proposal)
I don't know where this 25kph threshold comes from, it seems to be widely adopted - Australia, China, EU, Brazil, I expect others I don't know about, not universal but as close to a worldwide standard as we have. The notable exception being the US, which is also notable for having such a poor cycling culture, even there there's a backlash against the higher speeds, with E-bikes being banned in some places where cycles are permitted. It's that division I'm obsessed with avoiding.
For those who want faster, I'd agree with CJ that there's an argument for Speed Pedelecs to be re-classified and easier to own, though that would have to start with an acknowledgment that they're not bicycles. It's a shame the EU left such regulation to member states.

There is a good argument for a new light touch regulation of speed-limited lightweight electric mopeds, such as the speed pedelecs that are popular in continental Europe, but not here because UK regulates mopeds so strictly that one might as well get a full-blown motorbike. But that is not an argument for this forum. That is for the motorcycling lobby.

[Carlton green]

I don't agree that the intended purpose was to allow riders to keep up with a lot more able friends. The answer to that is to get better friends who make allowances for you.

Rather what speed is a reasonable speed to allow the less able to have a reasonable cycling exsperiance and be a useful mode of transport and of course be within their skill set to control.

25 KPH isn’t an unreasonable speed at which to stop assistance - perhaps that’s why it’s so widely adopted - if you’re able to ride faster than that without assistance then good luck to you.

Many years ago I had a cycling girlfriend who couldn’t ride as fast as me, that was a little frustrating but eventually I understood that I could simply ride slower and enjoy her company rather than ride half a mile ahead and be frustrated that she wasn’t keeping up - youth is so daft … and even older people who know better miss the obvious.

[Jdsk]

...
I think that cargo e-bikes - including tenbikes' log hauler - should come under the same regulatory regime as this new category of vehicle. They are a significantly heavier vehicle than even a loaded touring bike. Normal bicycle tyres and brakes are not really up to the job and someone in control of that much mass on any kind of downslope has a literally much heavier responsibility for the safety of others - regardless of what motor-assist speed they may be permitted. With greater power comes greater responsibitity, so licensing and resistration seems entirely appropriate: for any heavier and/or more powerful vehicle even if the motor is limited to 25kmph. However I think that it would be sensible to let 25kmph-limited cargo cycles into pedestrianised shopping streets 24/7, along with bicycles, and not just during specified delivery hours. So I think there's some merit in maintaining a distinction between speed-pedelecs and those that are also more powerful but not also faster.

The Wikipedia article says that the UK has a weight limit of 30 kg, but the GOV.UK overview doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_ ... gal_status
https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

Is there a current (!) limit?

Thanks

Jonathan

[peterb]

I was informed on another forum that the 25kph assistance cut off speed was decided-on in the early days of e-bikes as being the appropriate maximum assisted speed for utility cycling, utility bikes forming the majority of electrically assisted bikes at the time. E-road bikes were not available at the time. Times have changed.

[CJ]

The Wikipedia article says that the UK has a weight limit of 30 kg, but the GOV.UK overview doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_ ... gal_status
https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

Is there a current (!) limit?

I think the wikipedia article may be confusing the 1983 UK regulation on EAPCs, that did have a weight limit but now applies only to such pre-existing e-bikes as remain in use, with the BS/EU Standard, that applies to all EAPCs first used since (a certain cut-off date I don't recall) and does NOT stipulate any weight limit.

[Jdsk]

Thankyou

Jonathan

[UpWrong]

I guess I bought an eBike as an electric moped, so I can commute further. I accept the 25kph speed limit as I make use of shared paths. For road "club cyclists" who want to keep up with the peloton as they age etc, surely what's needed most is assistance for the hills which can be switched on/off as required. And for hill climbing 25kph is a high enough legal limit anyway. On the flats and downhills, the extra few pounds of a small motor and battery should not be a hindrance.

[peterb]

Sorry to be pedantic but I'd question the use of 'Peloton' in the context of a club ride. It gives the wrong impression as it refers to the main body of riders in a road race, not a club run.

[PH]

I was informed on another forum that the 25kph assistance cut off speed was decided-on in the early days of e-bikes as being the appropriate maximum assisted speed for utility cycling, utility bikes forming the majority of electrically assisted bikes at the time. E-road bikes were not available at the time. Times have changed.

How much do you think it's changed?
I'm not aware of any numbers, but as a casual observer, I'd suggest the sports E-bikes make up well under 10%.
Not that it matters, the regulations have to be appropriate for all uses, rather than all users.

I read elsewhere that Belgium are going to allow licensed Speed Pedelecs (45kph) on the cycle facilities, I'm not sure if this means all or some facilities, or if they'll have to use them as cyclists do, but the move does seem to come from the motoring lobby to get them off the road. Maybe at some point we'll have some figures about how well they mix, though my experience of Belgium's cycle paths isn't the same as those of the UK's.