Law on restricted ebikes

[Cugel]

... 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.

I become dismayed at this constant carping on about shared footpaths. Not because I want to see e-bikes (or just bikes) able to go down them at 20-25mph but because It seems glaringly obvious that such footway use by any bicycles at all is a big mistake. Bicycles are far better served by roads - as are pedestrians who would like to be able to walk about a path without some cyclist hooligans buzzing them or running over their children and dogs.

The issue isn't e-bikes on paths, it's inconsiderate cyclist-hooligans on shared paths, motorised or not. Putting a motor in a bike doesn't automatically make the rider ride at unsafe speeds for the environment. The cause of such behaviour is a certain kind of human attitude, not a motor.

Moreover, if we as cyclists support separate paths for cyclists and walkers, this will a) cost far to much to ever be implement beyond a tiny number of places and b) give the motorist lobby the excuse they're always looking for to ban bikes from far more roads than just the motorways; perhaps from all roads. The answer is to police dangerous motorists, not to try to separate cars from bikes. 99.99% of cyclist road journeys are safe and only become unsafe because of motorist hooliganism.

***********
If e-bikes were allowed to be used just like ordinary bikes - i.e. to be ridden as fast as the particular cyclist can manage where it's safe to do so - then allowing assistance from a motor is better served by a motor power limit than by a speed limit. Cyclists who could go as fast (or nearly) as traffic in a town, for example, would be in far less danger than those who are constantly close-passed by impatient motorists. So would the motorists, especially those coming the other way faced head-on by an impatient overtaker.

***********
I detect a strange anti e-bike prejudice still operating within those who think of themselves as more "pure" because they're unassisted. Another exhibition of the British tendency to form classes and then have associated class prejudices, I feel.

Cugel

[Nearholmer]

become dismayed at this constant carping on about shared footpaths. Not because I want to see e-bikes (or just bikes) able to go down them at 20-25mph but because It seems glaringly obvious that such footway use by any bicycles at all is a big mistake.

Methinks you are thinking of only one type of shared-use path, those that are really urban pavements, lazily re-designated shared-use by councils trying to hit a target on the cheap by dint of sticking up some blue signs. I agree that most of them are utter rubbish, unsuitable for shared-use.

But, they are nothing whatsoever, at all, in any way shape or form the whole story. I’ve just come back from a two hour perambulation during which I traversed multiple types of shared-use path, suburban and deeply rural, none of which was anything like those awful “former pavement” ones.

I’ve suggested before that you pop over to MK and join me for a conducted tour to see what other forms of shared use path exist, and why it’s vital to prevent mopeds-by-any-other-name ruining them.

What is it about having no assistance after 25kph that bugs you anyway - it’s plenty fast enough for practical purposes?

[Pebble]

the greater the speed the greater the responsibility - there has to come a point where 3rd party insurance is compulsory and the use of motorcycle type helmets by law, it just stops being cycling.

[Cugel]

become dismayed at this constant carping on about shared footpaths. Not because I want to see e-bikes (or just bikes) able to go down them at 20-25mph but because It seems glaringly obvious that such footway use by any bicycles at all is a big mistake.

Methinks you are thinking of only one type of shared-use path, those that are really urban pavements, lazily re-designated shared-use by councils trying to hit a target on the cheap by dint of sticking up some blue signs. I agree that most of them are utter rubbish, unsuitable for shared-use.

But, they are nothing whatsoever, at all, in any way shape or form the whole story. I’ve just come back from a two hour perambulation during which I traversed multiple types of shared-use path, suburban and deeply rural, none of which was anything like those awful “former pavement” ones.

I’ve suggested before that you pop over to MK and join me for a conducted tour to see what other forms of shared use path exist, and why it’s vital to prevent mopeds-by-any-other-name ruining them.

What is it about having no assistance after 25kph that bugs you anyway - it’s plenty fast enough for practical purposes?

MK is a special case of paths properly designed along with the whole town for the purpose of pedestrian and cyclist mixing. It's very unusual - every other so-called shared path I've ever been down is unfit for the purpose, with no separation, no speed controls or any attempt to make them suitable for cyclists and pedestrians to mix unless there's only about one of each every hundred yards.

My view that speed restrictions on motor help are pointless, as power limitations are more effective, comes down to this: my scheme (total cyclist + motor power limited to 250 watts then motor cuts out) provides less power in total than today's 25kph-restricted e-bikes.

My FTP is around 200-220 watts. The e-bike I ride can be legally set to produce 250 watts - a total of 450-470 watts. This is more power than anyone needs to go up serious hills. Anyone, including the not-very-fit, can go up a serious hill if the total motor + cyclist power is limited to 250 watts.

On the flat or downhill, many cyclists can routinely go at speeds well above 25kph. Why is it a problem for less fit cyclists with a motor to also be enabled to go at those same speeds? (Please don't invoke the shared path risk red herring as the vast majority of cycling is done on roads and, anyway, its attitude not motor or leg power that causes the problems of hooligan cyclist speeding).

Why do I want an e-bike to offer it's assistance at any speed the cyclist can get up to? Because they can then ride with other fitter cyclists not just up hills but on the flat, at the same pace. Because bicycles going at 20 - 25 mph on the roads are far less likely to be subject to close-passes by hooligan motorists. Limiting the total power, after which the power cuts off, to 250 watts will automatically reduce the maximum speed to whatever a reasonably fit cyclist with no motor can go at.

Cugel

[Nearholmer]

I’m with you on the “combined power” logic, as I’ve said before, and if you can convince legislators and suppliers, if be delighted, in fact I’d join you in advocating it to them, but unless or until that is achieved, IMO the present rough and ready law does a reasonable job.

As regards MK being unique: uniquely extensive and uniquely old now, but if you look across the UK the general form of “Redway” shared-use path is gradually become more common, and canal paths, bridleways, restricted byways, and converted former railway routes are by no means confined to MK, and they are all shared-use. If you look at Holland, one of the reasons for it being a cycling success story is that it has vast lengths of shared-use, traffic free paths (there’s a lot more to it than that obviously, but shared-use, traffic free paths are part of it), and it’s a model that works well in other places across the globe. Focusing only on the behaviour of the drivers of motor vehicles as a way of making the UK properly ‘cyclable’ will never work, things like shared-use paths, “aggressive” traffic calming etc are vital too.

Why don't you just get a moped if your concern is being close-passed at <25kph, that would at least bring you up to ‘traffic speed’ in more locations? Although I’m out of date on moped practice, maybe they don’t have pedals these days.

[hemo]

Just pedal harder for more speed.
My front hub drive bafang g370 I have set the cut off speed to 14.2 mph, it dosen't stop me from pedalling faster and as with today I topped 23mph for approx. 1/2 a mile burst above the cut off.

The rules/law for eapc/pedelec speeds won't change, as we have said so many times the laws are set harmoniously with EU & most other countries who have adopted the same laws. The UK has other ebike classes which means single vehicle testing and registration, the fact the process isn't easy and expensive to get insured is to stop bikes imv from becoming mopeds.
Sadly with lack of policing and enfocement there are 100's of iilegal ebikes on the road, the obvious ones have a large 200mm or so black hub front or rear rangeing from 1kw to 3kw and mostly twist and go. Then there are the bikes that look like motobikes with up to 8kw hub motors that the unruly hoon around on.
Typically one can expect a lot of the takeaway dispatch riders use an illegal bike.

[jgurney]

MK is a special case of paths properly designed along with the whole town for the purpose of pedestrian and cyclist mixing. It's very unusual - every other so-called shared path I've ever been down is unfit for the purpose, with no separation, no speed controls or any attempt to make them suitable for cyclists and pedestrians to mix unless there's only about one of each every hundred yards.

I agree that there are a lot of very poorly designed examples of pedestrian-cycle shared use, and I tend to be very suspicious of using them. However, that said there are thousands of miles of shared-use general-purpose roads around, without footways, where all forms of users share. Since that is possible, indeed commonplace, then pedestrian-cycle or pedestrian-cycle-horse sharing ought to be easier. It seems to create problems for three main reasons:

• setting it up to fail by introducing shared use to a road / path which is inadequate for the traffic levels involved, where pedestrians really need segregating from cycle traffic just as on many general-purpose roads they are segregated from other users on footways.
  
  • both pedestrians and cyclists failing to behave sensibly and to follow simple rules. I think a lot of this is due to a car-dominated culture creating the misguided belief that the usual rules somehow only apply if motor traffic is present, leading to people who ride or walk sensibly along a general-purpose country lane changing into troublesome nuisances as soon as there are no cars around.
    
    • presenting shared use routes which are only fit for low speed leisure cycling as if they were viable alternatives to main roads for commuting, utility and long range touring cycling.

[Nearholmer]

Usage density is important. Once the pedestrian density on a shared space gets to a given point, even fairly slow cycling becomes potentially dangerous, and definitely difficult.

Because we’ve got so much in the way of paths in MK, this doesn’t generally become a problem locally, but there are a few ‘hotspots’ where at certain times it does, the worst being a wide ‘promenade’ by a lake, which is mega-popular at weekends, especially if the weather is good. Also, for a city with zillions of bike paths, the provision around the city centre is poor/confused, creating potential conflict between cyclists and cars in parking areas, and with pedestrians on shared paths. The council is trying to sort it out, but they’ve inherited some poor (naive perhaps, given when it was done) design from the Development Corporation, so not easy.

In short: yes, things do need to be designed properly, and not done on the cheap.

[stodd]

By MK do you mean Milton Keynes?

[Nearholmer]

I do.

[Cugel]

I’m with you on the “combined power” logic, as I’ve said before, and if you can convince legislators and suppliers, if be delighted, in fact I’d join you in advocating it to them, but unless or until that is achieved, IMO the present rough and ready law does a reasonable job.

As regards MK being unique: uniquely extensive and uniquely old now, but if you look across the UK the general form of “Redway” shared-use path is gradually become more common, and canal paths, bridleways, restricted byways, and converted former railway routes are by no means confined to MK, and they are all shared-use. If you look at Holland, one of the reasons for it being a cycling success story is that it has vast lengths of shared-use, traffic free paths (there’s a lot more to it than that obviously, but shared-use, traffic free paths are part of it), and it’s a model that works well in other places across the globe. Focusing only on the behaviour of the drivers of motor vehicles as a way of making the UK properly ‘cyclable’ will never work, things like shared-use paths, “aggressive” traffic calming etc are vital too.

Why don't you just get a moped if your concern is being close-passed at <25kph, that would at least bring you up to ‘traffic speed’ in more locations? Although I’m out of date on moped practice, maybe they don’t have pedals these days.

Sad that you descend to the "get a moped" jeer. Still, this to the side.

MK was designed as a new town with the design of the cycleways included from scratch. It's no easy matter (often impossible) to create such well-designed cycleways in already extant towns where a zero-sum situation often occurs - making a proper cycleway will remove a large swathe of other facility currently in use, from a hedge with a strip of field, to roads and pavements; even whole buildings. No one is ever going to agree all that or pay the immense price for doing it even if permitted to do so.

Policing motorised traffic on the roads, however, gives many wins with the only loss the freedumb of hooligans in cars to maim and kill. Such policing would pay for itself, not just in polis-wage = fines collected but in a vast raft of savings from less pollution, less NHS spend and less misery in the families and friends of those maimed or killed.

******
As a final effort to illustrate why a more restrictive power limit rather than a speed restriction is preferable .......

When I go out with the ladywife, she can go up the hills, courtesy of her motor, as fast or faster than me on the unpowered bike. We can match speeds as she only uses enough power to do so.

On the flat, I can easily put out enough power of my own to go at 18-22 mph, depending on the wind direction and road surface. When she gets to 15.5mph, no motor and she hasn't enough leg power to get to much more than about 17mph at best.

So why not allow her the motor, limited so it and her legs can never output more than 250 watts, to work at any speed? She could then ride at my natural pace. Who would this arrangement harm?

Surely any cyclist who knows how to cycle (with forethought, safety and good manners) will control their speed to match the circumstances, motor or no. A motorised cyclist with that limit of 250 watts total is no different from tens of thousands of non-motorised cyclists who are just a bit fitter.

The 15.5mph/25kph is an arbitrary limit someone made up without any evidence for or against. There's now a ton of e-bike experience. which suggests that many have too much power but, paradoxically not enough assistance in many circumstances.

Cugel

[Nearholmer]

Sad that you descend to the "get a moped" jeer. Still, this to the side.

It’s not a jeer, it’s a practical suggestion in light of the fact that you expressed concern about not being able to maintain a speed that keeps the number of times you’re overtaken down. I’m trying to point out that a solution already exists to the need you express.

I’ve said multiple times that I agree with you about combined power, rather than power and speed separately, being a better analogy for the human engine, but just for the avoidance of doubt: I agree with you. Others have explained why it’s a very difficult thing to get that implemented.

The fact that shared use paths aren’t the solution for everything, everywhere I also agree with, and said as much at length yesterday. But that doesn’t for a second obviate the need to protect those that do exist, and the new ones that are being built in multiple places, from mopeds-in-all-but-name. If the law ever changes to the “combined power” model for EAPCs, I’ll be profoundly relaxed about them sharing, but what I will never feel happy about is the thing many people are forever banging on about, simply raising the speed cap on assistance on 250W EAPCs of the current kind, because people ‘ghost pedalling’ while zipping along at 20mph or 25mph, which is for sure what would happen, in shared spaces would not be safe for pedestrians. People ghosting along at 15mph seems to work OK for the most part.

Why do I talk about ghosting? Because that’s how very many people use EAPCs as utility vehicles and for light leisure. They make relatively short trips, so battery capacity when on full assist doesn’t become an issue, and it really doesn’t matter if that’s how they use them. There is a slice of EAPC use that’s about longer leisure trips, and then there is the “sporty” slice of use, and in those applications the use pattern is different, with much more human input and nursing of battery capacity.

[Cugel]

Sad that you descend to the "get a moped" jeer. Still, this to the side.

It’s not a jeer, it’s a practical suggestion in light of the fact that you expressed concern about not being able to maintain a speed that keeps the number of times you’re overtaken down. I’m trying to point out that a solution already exists to the need you express.

I'm not concerned about being close passed personally, as I'm sure you realise but lots of cyclists, in towns and cities especially, are. If you observe such cyclists who are able to pedal up to 20-25mph on the flatter sections, you might also notice that they don't get close-passed nearly so much. This is because the car hooligans behind are less frustrated than when they're "forced" by a cyclist to go at 12mph; and because much city and town traffic itself goes at 20-25mph.

I’ve said multiple times that I agree with you about combined power, rather than power and speed separately, being a better analogy for the human engine, but just for the avoidance of doubt: I agree with you. Others have explained why it’s a very difficult thing to get that implemented.

Others have not explained that this is difficult, probably because it's not. It takes only a small change to the software governing the motor.

The fact that shared use paths aren’t the solution for everything, everywhere I also agree with, and said as much at length yesterday. But that doesn’t for a second obviate the need to protect those that do exist, and the new ones that are being built in multiple places, from mopeds-in-all-but-name. If the law ever changes to the “combined power” model for EAPCs, I’ll be profoundly relaxed about them sharing, but what I will never feel happy about is the thing many people are forever banging on about, simply raising the speed cap on assistance on 250W EAPCs of the current kind, because people ‘ghost pedalling’ while zipping along at 20mph or 25mph, which is for sure what would happen, in shared spaces would not be safe for pedestrians. People ghosting along at 15mph seems to work OK for the most part.

The issue with bike hooliganism on shared paths is not e-bike motors - it's a) inconsiderate cyclists (and sometimes pedestrians) along with b) the fact that normal pedestrian and normal cyclist speeds, even of the the slower kind, are incompatible on shared facilities not made for both but which are rather footpaths to which cyclists have been foolishly given access so that some bureaucrat can claim that they've provided off-road cycling facilities.

Cugel

[Nearholmer]

It takes only a small change to the software governing the motor.

It takes reaching agreement across multiple nations, and changing the law.

It’s difficult.

[the snail]

Others have not explained that this is difficult, probably because it's not. It takes only a small change to the software governing the motor.

It would be possible on a torque sensor motor, not on cadence sensor motor. Pointlessly complicated anyway imo.