Law on restricted ebikes

[James257]

Hi,

Apologies if answered before, I did try and search with no luck. It's a bit of a legal grey area question but thought someone may have more information than I can find.

If an mid drive ebike was restricted via software, to only draw 250w max and cut out at 15.5mph would this satisfy the legal requirements linked here? https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

This wouldn't be a switch, it would require being turned off, and reprogrammed to exceed this.

Many thanks,

[hemo]

If the motor is 250w continuous rated it is legal, if a 500w or 750w marked motor is used it matters not what you do.
One can't make am illegal motor legal.

[Bonzo Banana]

Hi,

Apologies if answered before, I did try and search with no luck. It's a bit of a legal grey area question but thought someone may have more information than I can find.

If an mid drive ebike was restricted via software, to only draw 250w max and cut out at 15.5mph would this satisfy the legal requirements linked here? https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules

This wouldn't be a switch, it would require being turned off, and reprogrammed to exceed this.

Many thanks,

The law is a bit of a mess and prosecutions are extremely rare and those that are prosecuted typically have super powerful ebikes. It should be pointed out so called legal mid-drive motors from Bosch will reach close to 800W climbing hills sometimes over that for very short periods and those are so called legal motors although Bosch don't have a great record for being legal as their technology was used for the dieselgate emissions scandal. People assume because they bought their ebike in a shop or its a big brand its ok but really if you removed every ebike from the road that uses above 250W for long periods it would pretty much remove 99% of ebikes. I think Bosch batteries can provide something like 23-25A peak at 36V which is not 250W its 900W.

Also the legislation is extremely poorly written as hub motors don't have power themselves it is dictated by the controller how much wattage goes into the motor which is a separate component. Stating wattage for a motor only really works for mid-drive as both the controller and motor are in the same unit typically. The same direct drive motor for example could have 200W or maybe all the way to 3000W it just works with what power is supplied to it by the controller, it would be farcical to put a 250W sticker on such a motor.

https://www.ebikeschool.com/myth-ebike-wattage/

[Dingdong]

I think it's high time this law was re-assesed. Personally I'd either remove the speed limit altogether, or place it somewhere more sensible between 18-25mph.

What do others think?

[Jdsk]

Having followed the discussion in the *many other threads on the subject it seems to me that at the moment:

1 A general move to use of micromobility devices rather than car-like objects is a good thing.

2 The speed limit and other regulations are a compromise and there's not a lot of evidence to bring to bear on it.

3 The current legal position for assisted bikes seems about right. And the option to move into the (electric) moped category is there.

4 The same speed limit for assistance and criteria for exemption from regulation for powered vehicles and requirements for lighting should apply across all micromobility devices until we know more.

Jonathan

* And I expect this one to include the same arguments along the lines of "Unassisted cyclists can pedal faster than that limit... why shouldn't I be allowed to do the same with assistance?".

[Nearholmer]

My usual two penn’orth:

- the laws of physics dictate that a motor with a continuous rating of 250W will be able to output greater than 250W for short periods, so we shouldn’t be surprised, or cry foul, if they can and do;

- personally, I don’t care a fig what speed, within legal speed limits, EAPCs do on the road, but I do care very passionately indeed that they should behave in a fashion at least approximately like a real push bike on shared-use paths and reserved cycle paths, and ‘rough and ready’ as the current combination of power and speed limits are, in that respect, they make a reasonable job of achieving that, so are fine by me, even if clever software could be used to achieve a closer analogy to a real person on a push bike;

- if people want or need the ‘oomph’ of a moped, they can buy a moped, and if the grumble is that that attracts too much cost in terms of insurance etc, then the campaign should be to alter the insurance, MOT etc rules for mopeds, rather than liberalise EAPC limits, risking cyclists, walkers, and horse riders being driven-off shared paths by powerful machines.

- there’s nothing stopping an EAPC user pedalling beyond the assistance limit.

[Jdsk]

...
- personally, I don’t care a fig what speed, within legal speed limits, EAPCs do on the road, but I do care very passionately indeed that they should behave in a fashion at least approximately like a real push bike on shared-use paths and reserved cycle paths, and ‘rough and ready’ as the current combination of power and speed limits are, in that respect, they make a reasonable job of achieving that, so are fine by me;

- if people want or need the ‘oomph’ of a moped, they can buy a moped, and if the grumble is that that attracts too much cost in terms of insurance etc, then the campaign should be to alter the insurance, MOT etc rules for mopeds, rather than liberalise EAPC limits, risking cyclists, walkers, and horse riders being driven-off shared paths by powerful machines.

Yes, the future of shared-use spaces is a major factor in my current (!) thoughts.

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

The whole history of mixing motor vehicles and pushbikes on roads tells us that having vehicles with widely disparate capability in the same space is fraught with difficulty, always disadvantaging the less powerful, so as cyclists we should be super clear in our heads that we don’t want to repeat that disaster in spaces shared by cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.

[Cugel]

Having followed the discussion in the *many other threads on the subject it seems to me that at the moment:

1 A general move to use of micromobility devices rather than car-like objects is a good thing.

2 The speed limit and other regulations are a compromise and there's not a lot of evidence to bring to bear on it.

3 The current legal position for assisted bikes seems about right. And the option to move into the (electric) moped category is there.

4 The same speed limit for assistance and criteria for exemption from regulation for powered vehicles and requirements for lighting should apply across all micromobility devices until we know more.

Jonathan

* And I expect this one to include the same arguments along the lines of "Unassisted cyclists can pedal faster than that limit... why shouldn't I be allowed to do the same with assistance?".

What makes the current legal position "seem right"? Isn't that just a bald opinion?

How will "we know more" unless "more" is allowed so that it can be known about?

This subject is awash with uninformed opinion and arbitrary limitations based on nothing but the feeling in someone's water. Even generally sensible and fact-based fellows seem unable to get their blinkers off for a more disinterested look at things.

The fundamental fact is this: non-powered bikes can go at speeds up to 60mph (downhill) and many cyclists can go about for hours at a time at 20 - 25mph. Why, then, limit the speed of e-bike assistance to 15.5mph? Pure prejudice, seems the answer. What needs limiting is the power, not the speed. 250 watts is a good maximum limit as it represents what a reasonably fit cyclist can produce continuously. Limit the combined motor and cyclist power to 250 watts total, then, Easily possible with the software.

Cugel

[Jdsk]

The whole history of mixing motor vehicles and pushbikes on roads tells us that having vehicles with widely disparate capability in the same space is fraught with difficulty, always disadvantaging the less powerful, so as cyclists we should be super clear in our heads that we don’t want to repeat that disaster in spaces shared by cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians.

And I hope that we're going to see more people choosing shared-use car-free routes. It would be nice if the provision went up with the need. But in practice they'll probably be busier than at present and we should plan accordingly.

Jonathan

[Tigerbiten]

The fundamental fact is this: non-powered bikes can go at speeds up to 60mph (downhill) and many cyclists can go about for hours at a time at 20 - 25mph. Why, then, limit the speed of e-bike assistance to 15.5mph? Pure prejudice, seems the answer. What needs limiting is the power, not the speed. 250 watts is a good maximum limit as it represents what a reasonably fit cyclist can produce continuously. Limit the combined motor and cyclist power to 250 watts total, then, Easily possible with the software.

Cugel

You need to be hyper fit to do 20-25 mph for hours on end.
Around 15 mph is where air resistance ramps up to be a major factor in drag.
So that's around the upper limit for unfit casual cyclist can keep up for an hour or so.
You won't find that type of cyclist bombing down a main road but on shared paths.
So limiting an e-bike to that speed makes sense to me.
If you want to go faster on roads to keep up with the hyper fit cyclists then you want an e-moped.

Luck ........

[Pebble]

I would reduce max speed further (down to 12mph) purely on the shared path use. But first of all the police need to start arresting and disposing of their ebikes of those who doc them and use them as motor bikes, seen two last week on a shared path, 25-30mph not even pedalling. - I would feel safer on a dual carriageway in rushour traffic than on a shared path with these clowns.

[Nearholmer]

Limit the combined motor and cyclist power to 250 watts total, then, Easily possible with the software.

Fine (ish).

As I’ve said multiple times before, many “human motor” analogies could be arrived at with modern software. I happen to think 250W is way above what is sustainable by the broad spectrum of people who ride bikes, who aren’t all fit enough to sustain 250W, but that’s a detail.

Any really good analogy would model human exhaustion realistically too, which might dissuade users from deploying 259W continuously, because the bike would want to stop for a rest and a bun after an hour or less.

But, the present limits are, as I said a decent “rough and ready” approximation, and they are perfectly good enough to permit utility and light leisure cycling by people of mildly limited physical capability.

Beware the risk of ruining shared use spaces in the way that roads have been ruined since about 1896.

[Jdsk]

I would reduce max speed further (down to 12mph) purely on the shared path use. But first of all the police need to start arresting and disposing of their ebikes of those who doc them and use them as motor bikes, seen two last week on a shared path, 25-30mph not even pedalling. - I would feel safer on a dual carriageway in rushour traffic than on a shared path with these clowns.

If there was a way of enforcing variable speed limits based on locality my views might change.

AIUI some eScooters are geofenced...

Jonathan

[Chris Jeggo]

... and many cyclists can go about for hours at a time at 20 - 25mph. ...

Hmm, yes, but my personal observation is that such cyclists nearly always choose to do soon on carriageways rather than footpaths or footways.