# EU's electric bike rule changes slammed by Bicycle Assocation boss



## mickle (22 Dec 2011)

From Bike Biz
*by Carlton Reid*


*Phillip Darnton, executive director of BAGB, warns UK Gov't that proposed EU rule changes risk creating danger on the roads.*

Phillip Darnton, executive director of the Bicycle Association, has written a hard-hitting letter to transport minister Norman Baker, warning of the dangers for the UK if EU rule changes on electric bikes are accepted into UK law.
Extracts from Darnton's letter are below:
"The proposed changes [concern] the Motor Cycles Framework Regulation COM (2010) 542 by the IMCO Commission of the European Parliament. We understand that these proposals are to be voted on by a plenary session of the EU Parliament in February 2012.
"The BAGB, on behalf of the UK cycle industry, is very concerned by the latest amended proposals, and ask you to use all appropriate means to ensure that they are rejected, and form no part of any consequent UK legislation.
"Following the DfT’s consultation on both EPAC’s and EPV’s in March 2010, there was agreement across the industry – as well as with cycling groups – that the guidance which, de facto, had been in force in the UK on the definition of an EPAC was almost entirely appropriate, and in keeping with general practice in EU countries. The three key determinants of an electrically-assisted pedal cycle were:
i.maximum speed of 15mph/25kphii.power rating of 250 w. maximum (currently 200 w. In UK)iii.power cut-off when not pedalled (except for initial start-up i.e. no “twist-and-go” throttle capability
"The UK industry, along with Colibi/Coliped for European manufacturers and distributors, have sought to ensure that any revised regulations:
i.make a clear distinction between a bicycle and any form of scooter, moped or motor-cycle.
ii.ensure the safety of all road-users, with regard to the speed, acceleration and weight of EAPC’s
iii.give absolute clarity to retailers and consumers on what the legal status of the EAPC is; i.e. that it is not a ‘motor vehicle; requiring a licence, vehicle excise duty, a rider age limit, and mandatory helmet use.
iv.To muddle the clear distinction between pedal cycles and all other road vehicles is a significant potential risk to their current position, which requires none of the above.
"However, the last amended draft from the IMCO Commission of the EU has introduced two features of the definition which are of serious concern, namely: that the power-rating maximum of 250watt should be relaxed to include motors up to 1kw; and that the bicycle does not need to be pedalled for the motor to engage i.e. “twist and go” throttles are to be allowed.
"Not only would such a regulation blur the distinction between what is/is not a bicycle, but also presents considerable risks for road safety, especially in terms of continuous speed as well as acceleration. It is not stated whether there would be any minimum age limit on the riders of these 25 kph electric vehicles, or where their use would be proscribed, eg whether allowed in cycle lanes.
"China, in particular, is manufacturing cheap “twist and go” bikes in large quantities, and the impact of the adoption of this amended regulation by the EU Parliament would – assuming that it was followed by the DfT in due course – very quickly have an effect on Britain’s roads. Hence the significance of drawing it to your attention now.
"The proposed amendment to the Motor Cycle Framework Regulation COM 542 has been very actively promoted by the European motor cycling lobby group (ETRA); it would in our view, be irresponsible if this special pleading were to influence new regulation without challenge. If the current speed of pedal cyclists is already a concern for some road users, a move to larger, faster and heavier electric vehicles will only make the issue worse. 
"Furthermore such changes would effectively constitute a ‘back-door’ route to deregulate entry-level motor cycles, making them available to a much younger group and removing essential safety standards."


----------



## mickle (23 Dec 2011)

Sorry, posted this and ran yesterday. I find it interesting that Darnton claims to speak on behalf of the Cycle Industry and that he is so very concerned by the proposed change to the legislation. This, the legislative maze between bicycles and motor vehicles, is the area from which the next generation of light private vehicles will emerge. What was agreed recently in Europe and which forms the basis of the proposed change to the legislation is that it is the speed of an electric vehicle which is relevant from a safety PoV not its motor's power rating. Allowing a greater than 250w motor opens up the potential of load or passenger carrying cycles. They wont be going any faster, they'll just have more ooomph. So what's Darton's beef?

The whole area desperately needs tiying up. We're trying to establish if it's possible to install a lecky motor on a two seater quad. Bike yes, trike yes. Quad? Who knows?


----------



## snorri (23 Dec 2011)

More oomph worries me a bit.
That is a lengthy article with much techno/legal jargon which I may be misunderstanding, but if these higher powered vehicles are to be permitted on routes presently restricted to pedal cycles, then I would not be happy. From experience in The Netherlands of sharing segregated paths with low powered motor bikes(broomfiets), the speed differential causes concern among pedal cyclists. The problem is perhaps worsened by the fact that these machines are popular with young people who can be a little less cautious(!). The risks to pedal cyclists have increased as engineering advances have achieved greater speeds from the same engine sizes.


----------



## mickle (23 Dec 2011)

Yeahbut they'll still be limited to 25kph.


----------



## Davidc (23 Dec 2011)

The end point could well be that human powered pedal cycles stay as they have been since the original VCRT agreement but all assisted 2 wheel vehicles are classed as motorcycles.

(VCRT is Vienna Convention on Road Transport)


----------



## StuartG (23 Dec 2011)

Davidc said:


> The end point could well be that human powered pedal cycles stay as they have been since the original VCRT agreement but all assisted 2 wheel vehicles are classed as motorcycles. (VCRT is Vienna Convention on Road Transport)


That worries me. Anybody can ride a bike. But in the UK over 90% elect not to do so and there is little prospect of that changing soon.This is an opportunity to offer an alternative that is not going to be killed at birth by a bureaucracy requiring licensing, taxation and insurance which is surely not that necessary for relatively slow cycles.

What is clear is battery assisted power does open up cycling to people who are unable, or think they are unable, to cycle comfortably. Albeit with the weedy offerings currently which are of minimal help if you need to pack a couple of panniers up a decent hill. Like the one I live on. Which also means a cargo bike is impractical for me - and I'm pretty fit!

This does seem a real opportunity to shift modal choice away from cars. Its a great way for mature people to get into cycling and the elderly and disabled to continue cycling. So its not PROPER cycling. But then Mike Cavendish probably doesn't think my efforts are in the same class as his ...


----------



## Davidc (23 Dec 2011)

StuartG said:


> This does seem a real opportunity to shift modal choice away from cars.


 
Why would any government do that? Loss of tax revenue, loss of contol, etc. etc.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (24 Dec 2011)

mickle said:


> Yeahbut they'll still be limited to 25kph.


But they will be able to be heavier, which I think is the big concern.


----------



## CamPhil (25 Dec 2011)

I don't see any problem with such vehicles being allowed to exist, provided they are NOT classed as any form of pedal cycle, and are subject to normal forms of motor vehicle legislation.
For mere pedal assistance, 250w is plenty.
Motor cut-out speed of 15mph (or 15.625mph/25km/h if we come into line with existing EAPC regs) is reasonable.
Current EAPC weight limits are reasonable.
How long would it take for people to start "deregulating" 1kW electric bikes to allow them to go at moped (or higher) speeds?
And given that any such vehicle falls outside MOT requirements, how would it be regulated to prevent them?


----------



## CamPhil (25 Dec 2011)

Davidc said:


> Why would any government do that? Loss of tax revenue, loss of contol, etc. etc.


 
Motor vehicles do not provide a net income to the exchequer - quite the reverse.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Dec 2011)

I would welcome a change in the power limits, currently 200w for two wheelers and 250w for three wheelers, I would like to see 250w for two wheelers and 350w for three wheelers, 500w up is pretty lethal, I have been developing an electric assist trike and have tried a 1kw motor and the speed capability is absurd, 200w is a bit soft primarily for the torque available for a motor built to that spec, 350w on the trikes feels ideal to me but we have some 250w motors that are achieving adequate results, but to get the torque it means increasing the initial efficiency of the motor which increases cost of production, the 350w motors are inherently more efficient across the range, in my experience. As to the pedal assist v twist and go, the law is so vague as to make legislation near impossible, I have built both but the production units will be pedal assist, I am unlikely to include a start up throttle to assist getting moving as it is to easy to abuse the system.


----------



## Bigsharn (26 Dec 2011)

The way I see it, Anything that's capable of 20mph+ shouldn't be allowed in a cycle lane/path (with the exception of the Cycle Superhighways in London), be that electric or petrol motor (or legs, for that matter).

The DfT gives the guideline that cycle lanes should be avoided if the cyclist is doing more than 18mph regardless. I like the idea of a higher speed for electric vehicles without a license, so long as they're limited to a decent level.

As mentioned above, bigger motors need bigger batteries (and therefore are capable of longer range if limited), so introducing higher powered motors for multiple-wheeled, or heavier cargo carrying bikes would make more sense, but then theres the minefield of pedal assist vs twist and go.


----------



## mickle (29 Dec 2011)

Here's the response! Yowch.

Annick Roetynck, Gent-based secretary general of ETRA, objected to the letter written to the UK Department for Transport by Phillip Darnton, executive director of BAGB. Roetynck took exception to ETRA being described as a "European motor cycling lobby group". In a blistering letter to the Bicycle Association, Roetynck expressed her obvious distaste at the UK organisation's position.

Her letter is published unedited.

Dear Mr Darnton
We have read the extracts from your letter to transport minister Norman Baker on the Bikebiz website carefully. We have found yet another loud protest against the improvements of European legislation for electric bikes as proposed by ETRA, which is full of inaccuracies and which is overall intellectually unfair.
ETRA has been working on this issue for several years. This year, we have actually worked on the issue on a daily basis: innumerable meetings with Commission staff, MEPs, Permanent Representations as well as close consultation with both our effective and associated members.
All protest against our proposals we have come across so far consists of sporadic letters full of half- truths, distorted facts and factual mistakes. Time and time again, you and your fellow protestors prove that you have not read the texts: not the Commission’s proposal for the review of the type-approval, not ETRA’s proposal for improving the Commission’s proposal, nor the draft Parliamentary report or the amendments. You have only read each-others’ letters and repeated the same mistakes over and over again, resulting in the same emotional and incorrect appeal.
Do you, Mr Darnton and your fellow protestors, truly believe for one moment that ETRA would propose legislation that will jeopardise the safety of the customers of our members? Do you not know that there is a European law making it illegal to place products on the market which are not safe?
Consequently, if we were pleading for unsafe legislation, then our proposal in itself would be illegitimate. 
Do you realise, Mr Darnton, how your proposal for not having any changes puts the safety of the customers of our members at risk? Without those changes, you will allow pedal assisted mountain bikes with assistance up to 45 km/h and a motor output of 4 kW to be excluded from the type-approval and to be placed on the market, being subject to virtually no rules whatsoever.
What is that going to do to the safety of the customers of our members? On the other hand, as a result of your and your fellow protestors’ position, a pedal assisted bike 25 km/h with 0.3 kW will be subject to technical requirements written for motorcycles. We are talking about for instance On Board Diagnostics, wheels that can rotate at different speed at any time for safe cornering and the type-approval of virtually all components, whilst those very same components can be used without type-approval on a 25 km/h – 0.25 kW or on a conventional bicycle. Would you like to explain that to our dealers, Mr Darnton?
And would you like to explain to them that this 25 km/h with 0.3 kW costs £ 3,000 instead of £ 1,500 because somebody has to pay for certification of vehicle and components by an accredited lab? We are working for regulations for electric bicycles, pedal assisted and open throttle, in both the 25 km/h and 45 km/h speed categories, that are made for electric bicycles, not for motorcycles. We are working for regulations that are relevant for the safety performance of the bikes, that are workable for the companies concerned, that are affordable and that do not obstruct the market.
We believe that the type-approval for motorcycles is not the appropriate regulatory framework for electric bicycles. Therefore, we want most of the 25 km/h vehicles out of that framework and into the framework of the Machinery and EMC Directive in combination with a European standard. Why are you so much against this idea? It works well for the pedal assisted bikes 25 km/h and 0.25 kW. Do you not share our faith in this regulatory framework?
And as for the 45 km/h, we do agree with a type-approval. Only, we do not agree with a motorcycle type-approval. We believe that electric bikes are important enough to have their own technical rules. We want to get rid of nonsense such as OBD or wheels that can rotate at different speeds at any time. Not you, Mr Darnton?
We work for the future of our members. Half of all car trips in the EU are less than 5 km. We believe that this offers an enormous potential to swap car trips by bike or electric bike trips. The current European regulations are standing in the way of those electric bikes. The European Union has decreed itself that no European law should stand in the way of market development.
We want our members to have electric bikes available that they can sell to postal services, pizza boys and girls, courier companies, real estate agents, emergency services, police forces, taxi companies, lawyers, politicians, commuters, … in other words to as many people as possible, no matter how much they weigh and what they want to transport and whether they live in the Peak District or in Lincolnshire.
In the Netherlands, 1 out of every 7 bikes sold by a dealers today is electric and has an average price of € 2,000. Do you want to go and tell these dealers that you want to stop this at some point? 
What are you and your fellow protestors working for, Mr Darnton? You certainly speak a lot and with a loud voice about safety but when will it begin to dawn on you that the safety you are speaking about cannot be achieved through the review of the type-approval?
This proposal is about technical requirements and technical requirements only, not about helmets, not about road use, not about age limits and certainly not about speed limits on the road. All these issues are not a European but a national competence.
Therefore, we kindly recommend you to focus on the review of the UK traffic code rather than on the review of the European type-approval for motorcycles. Should you wish to continue to focus on the review of the European type-approval, then we kindly but urgently invite you to read the Commission’s proposal, ETRA’s proposal aimed at improving the Commission’s proposal, the draft Parliamentary report and the amendments, as well as to attend all relevant meetings.
Oh, and one last correction. ETRA stands for European Twowheel Retailers’ Association, not the “European motor cycling lobby group”. Please refer to us in a correct way in your future letters.We wish you a merry Christmas and a New Year in which you will find the time to read and digest all the above-mentioned documents.


----------



## upandover (31 Dec 2011)

That's quite a high horse for a lobby group for ppl wishing to sell more of their products...


----------



## Riding in Circles (31 Dec 2011)

Out of interest it is not inconceivable to get 60 - 70 kph for extended periods with a 1kw motor.


----------



## irw (31 Dec 2011)

mickle said:


> Sorry, posted this and ran yesterday. I find it interesting that Darnton claims to speak on behalf of the Cycle Industry and that he is so very concerned by the proposed change to the legislation. This, the legislative maze between bicycles and motor vehicles, is the area from which the next generation of light private vehicles will emerge. What was agreed recently in Europe and which forms the basis of the proposed change to the legislation is that it is the speed of an electric vehicle which is relevant from a safety PoV not its motor's power rating. Allowing a greater than 250w motor opens up the potential of load or passenger carrying cycles. They wont be going any faster, they'll just have more ooomph. So what's Darton's beef?
> 
> The whole area desperately needs tiying up. We're trying to establish if it's possible to install a lecky motor on a two seater quad. Bike yes, trike yes. Quad? Who knows?


 
Mickle, in answer to your last question, no, you can't legally put an electric assist motor on a quad. I've looked into it for our quad quite extensively, thought I found a loophole, eventually emailed the DoT for clarification and was told that I would need to register it as (IIRC) a light quadricycle (inc. insurance/VED/helmets etc etc). I've got the email from them about it if your interested!

Consequently, my next build is going to be a trike version of my quad!

Ian


----------



## Riding in Circles (1 Jan 2012)

irw said:


> Mickle, in answer to your last question, no, you can't legally put an electric assist motor on a quad. I've looked into it for our quad quite extensively, thought I found a loophole, eventually emailed the DoT for clarification and was told that I would need to register it as (IIRC) a light quadricycle (inc. insurance/VED/helmets etc etc). I've got the email from them about it if your interested!
> 
> Consequently, my next build is going to be a trike version of my quad!
> 
> Ian


I think you could argue it out under the quadricycle ruling as long as it was under 60kg with motor and battery, it is a thin line between mopeds and bicycles.


----------



## irw (1 Jan 2012)

I've dug out the old email that I sent and recieved and it is as follows:


*From:* Ian Wilson 
*Sent:* 21 December 2010 00:34
*To:* TTS ENQUIRIES
*Subject:* Re: Advice required on building a pedal-powered quadricycleDear Mr. Rogers,

Thank you for your advice back in April regarding the cycle I was building. 

I have now completed the build of my quadricycle, to the standards specified, and it is running very well. I am now contemplating adding an electric assist motor to it, to help on uphill rides, but I am having a bit of trouble interpreting the EAPC factsheet with regards to a 4-wheeled pedal bike.

The information that I am working from can be found at: 
http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/articles/3/1/Dft-Factsheet---Electrically-Assisted-Pedal-Cycles-EAPCs-in-Great-Britain/Page1.html
It seems to me at first glance at sections 1 and 2 of the above document that an electric motor, say, for example, a 250w motor limited to 15mph is not allowed to be added to a 4 wheel cycle, however there is a paragraph, as quoted below from section 2, that lead me to believe there may be a possibility of adding electric assist:

“However, there are certain vehicles in this category which may be regarded as EAPCs and are exempt from both ECWVTA and MSVA. These are cycles with pedal assistance and an electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power output of not more than 0,25kW where the electrical assistance is cut off when the machine reaches a speed of 25km/h or where the cyclist stops pedalling. The exemption applies to two, three and four wheeled vehicles. Exempt EAPCs do not need a CoC or a MAC.”
So, if I can make it so that, with a 0.25Kw motor, if the riders stop pedalling, or the speed is greater than 25km/h, could my cycle qualify as an EAPC?

I have attached a picture of the quadricycle to give you a clearer idea of it, and for reference it is approximately 70Kg. The extra seat that can be seen on the back has now been removed.

Thank you very much for your help with this project. Obviously, with something as out-of-the-ordinary as this, I am keen to ensure that it conforms to the necessary legislation!

Ian Wilson

*Reply Received:*

Dear Mr Wilson

Thank you for your email to TTS Enquiries about building a pedal-powered quadricycle.The Department’s understanding is that a four wheeled EAPC under existing legislation would be classed as a light quadricycle. It would not need European Type approval (ECWVTA) or inspection under the national approval scheme for quadricycles (MSVA) but it would still need to be registered with the DVLA, fitted with a registration plate and insured. It’s use would be restricted to the road and the rider would need the correct category on their licence to ride it, i.e. category B1.For information, a consultation took place earlier this year on possible amendments to the regulations. The consultation is now closed but the documents can be viewed at:http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/2010-02/ <http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/2010-02/> 
When available the results will also be posted here. I hope this is helpful. Yours sincerely

Mary Kissane
Department for Transport
Transport Technology and Standards Division


----------



## Riding in Circles (1 Jan 2012)

The construction and use regulations 1983 are ambiguous regarding quadracycles in as much as they are certainly classified as pedal cycles if pedal powered only and the wheels are 20" or under, so I cannot imagine it would be possible to prosecute a user of an electrically assisted one if it satisfied the same rules as a trike purely on the basis that the definition is not properly attested to in any of the regulations.


----------



## wiggydiggy (4 Jan 2012)

Whats his (Phil Darnton) problem? The lady from ETRA takes him down a peg or two nicely, why are some people in cycling such utter snobs about who can cycle and where, surely anything that gets more people on bikes (electric or not) and less into cars is a good thing?


----------



## Old & In The Way (17 Nov 2013)

This looks like the right thread to ask a question about regulations around pedal vehicles. Apologies if it isn't.

Having read through the posts, I'm wondering whether there's a gov.uk page devoted to definitions of pedal vehicles, and links to whatever legislation relates to registration, licensing, insurance and so forth.

I went on to the gov.uk site and looked for any mention of recumbents, quadra/i/ocycles cand cargo bikes. No mention.* So I'm wondering where to go next for a general (and up to date) explanation of a) how various pedal powered vehicles are defined, and b) whether any of them require registration, insurance, driver licensing and so on.

*PS - forgot to search on tricycle - at which I found various useful things, including the Driving licence categories - GOV.UK, at which there's still no obvious declaration that pedal powered vehicles are included/excluded from license requirements. I'd have expected much clearer language on this sort of thing.

At the moment, partly based on Catrike's comments above, my impression is that a 4-wheel cycle with wheels over 20" (with or w/o tyres?) would require registration, insurance, and driver licensing, whereas no 3-wheeler would.

Interesting. More generally I'm wondering if there are regulatory obstacles to putting unusual pedal-powered vehicles on the roads, as a way of narrowing the practical considerations of how to go about doing it.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Nov 2013)

mickle said:


> Allowing a greater than 250w motor opens up the potential of load or passenger carrying cycles. They wont be going any faster, they'll just have more ooomph. ?




I have two trikes with (legal) 250 w motors.

One is a Christiania cargo trike, and by the time I have the trike itself (40 kg) and a mobility scooter (50 kg with battery) the 250w motor is essential.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Nov 2013)

Speaking as soemeone who found an electric bike very helpful in the recovery from serious illness I think we've got it just right as it stands.

I found myself in a position where I was too weak to ride under my own steam, so the power meant I could start riding again way sooner than I would have otherwise. Top speed of 15mph was only ever achieved on long flat stretches, I very rarely got to that point. As a general rule, on the flat, I was regularly over taken by non powered bikes. Going uphil was a different matter, but I only ever achieved 10mph going uphill.

My ebike does have a throttle, I used it mostly for pulling away at junctions uphil - very useful. Never really used it to ride without peddaling as it just disn't go fast enough if I didn't join in.

I met one or two people who had interesting stoies to tell. A man who'd sold his car to start ebiking, lost loads of weight and was about to sell ebike and get a normal bike. Others who had taken up ebiking through ill health or disability like myself.

I think it'll be a great shame if they're restricyed any further than they already are. My consultant and GP were both amazed at the speed of my recovery from my near death experience, I'm certain that was due in part to my getting out and cycling gently quicker than I would have done otherwise. And that's before I start talking about the massive psychological benefit I got from not being useless and isolated in my home (as someone who previously pottered about all over by bike)


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Nov 2013)

But back to your question...

Most of the electric bike suppliers have a potted set of the rules and regulations t guide their buyers.

This is one from the  A to B magazine

One thing to note is that you require to display the details of the motor on the hub itself - so it can be easily checked unless you alter the plate


----------



## Sara_H (17 Nov 2013)

2773801 said:


> Doesn't history suggest that the transition goes the other way? Cycle, moped, motorbike, car.


History does suggest that, but a quick glance at the pedalecs forum will show you that plenty people are doing it in reverse order.

I've noticed a couple of ebikes in the bike shed at work. For somewhere like I live thats very hilly, ebikes are fab for openining up cyling to those who are put off by hills. A colleague of mine, a woman in her fifties tentatively asked me if she can borrow mine for a test period - she's far from the typical cyclist demographic round these parts.


----------



## mcshroom (17 Nov 2013)

There's a couple where I work. One decided to pass me on the steep hill on my way home on Thursday which was demoralising (pedelec vs singlespeed is not a fair fight! :sulk: )


----------



## Sara_H (17 Nov 2013)

mcshroom said:


> There's a couple where I work. One decided to pass me on the steep hill on my way home on Thursday which was demoralising (pedelec vs singlespeed is not a fair fight! :sulk: )


Lost count of the number of times other cyclists accused me of cheating when I was using my ebike.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2013)

I also have an Electric bike which has a top speed of 25 kph.. I am often overtaken by road bikes that leave me for dead. I dont see what all the fuss is about.

Steve


----------



## snorri (17 Nov 2013)

steveindenmark said:


> I dont see what all the fuss is about.


 
.......but these people don't even pay road sweat, that's what the fuss is about


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Nov 2013)

Snorri,

You slanderous cur, of course I sweat

It is an electric assist bike. You can use as much of your own power that you want to. The more power you use the less electric you use.

I am getting dizzy now I must lay down.


----------



## classic33 (17 Nov 2013)

mickle said:


> Sorry, posted this and ran yesterday. I find it interesting that Darnton claims to speak on behalf of the Cycle Industry and that he is so very concerned by the proposed change to the legislation. This, the legislative maze between bicycles and motor vehicles, is the area from which the next generation of light private vehicles will emerge. What was agreed recently in Europe and which forms the basis of the proposed change to the legislation is that it is the speed of an electric vehicle which is relevant from a safety PoV not its motor's power rating. Allowing a greater than 250w motor opens up the potential of load or passenger carrying cycles. They wont be going any faster, they'll just have more ooomph. So what's Darton's beef?
> 
> The whole area desperately needs tiying up. We're trying to establish if it's possible to install a lecky motor on a two seater quad. Bike yes, trike yes. Quad? Who knows?


 Quad no at present. Maybe the new rules will allow it.


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Nov 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Whats his (Phil Darnton) problem? The lady from ETRA takes him down a peg or two nicely, why are some people in cycling such utter snobs about who can cycle and where, surely anything that gets more people on bikes (electric or not) and less into cars is a good thing?





User said:


> Does she? I think she shows herself and her organisation up.



I made this comment nearly 2 years ago lol

I googled the act and it does appear to have gone through, but given the act itself is 77 pages long I dont have time/inclination to see if the changes were made!

I found a summary:

"The new Framework Regulation introduces new Euro 4/5 emissions requirements, new sound level limits, requirements for advanced braking systems for some categories of vehicles, anti-tampering measures, access to information requirements as well as changes to end of series requirements and new limits on the number of vehicles that can be produced under small series."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/vehicletype/revised-framework-directive-motorcycles.asp
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:060:0052:0128:EN:PDF


----------

