Increase in seizures of illegal ebikes

[classic33]

Oh but the delivery companies say they care.

Because it's much harder to take action against someone saying "yes, yes, we agree with you. We'll do something about it" and then doing nothing.

But they aren't company employees. They're self-employed workers, who can accept or refuse any job that comes in.

Besides that, it's not only delivery riders using these to get around. They just happen to be easier spot due to marketing. You see the bag, then the bike, then the rider. If it were in a car you'd not see the logo.

 

[mjr]

That's what everyone's telling you, are you trying to contradict them with their own argument?

No, I'm just saying "show me the law", because I haven't found it and I suspect it's wishful thinking, or at least incorrect extrapolation.

Laws aren't retrospective,

Some are. Most aren't. But we're not actually talking about retrospective (making a past legal completed action illegal) but the current use of old e-bikes not conforming to the current rules.

if you have a vehicle that was built before a new regulation was introduced, you don't have to scrap it. Old cars with rod & cable brakes won't pass the current MOT, but they're still allowed on the road.

That's only because the current law includes an exception for old vehicles. There seems no general reason why that exception couldn't be removed if such a vehicle was deemed too dangerous at some future date.

 

[classic33]

OK. So why would a trike built and legal under the prior rules but not conforming to the current rules be "still OK to ride" on road now? Or wouldn't it?

The older rules included a slightly lower top speed and a lower power output allowed for the assist motor.

The new regulations(Europe wide) saw a standard set of regulations brought in. Prior to the new regulations coming in, the legal standards varied across Europe and within some countries themselves.

 

[raleighnut]

Nope, that doesn't work: the law specifically allows use of motor vehicles without seat belts "if no adult seat belt is available" and no law has yet required pre-65 cars to have them available. I've found no similar exception which would except pre-1983 e-bikes from the current rules. (Not that the current rules seem particularly difficult, other than the power limit and mph cut-off.)


That appears to be a specific exception written into the current law. There seems not to be a similar exception in the e-bike laws.

Just a thought, Mr Nut. I presume you have evidence your steed was built/converted under the old regulatory regime?

Yep I've got the receipts and if they're faded the payment records from the credit/debit cards

Cycling UK - who have lawyers and stuff so might be expected to be better informed than us - say:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/eapc-regulations

Note: twist-and-go e-bikes bought before the introduction of the new laws and limited to a 250W motor rating remain effectively legal and so can be legally purchased and used as secondhand models.​

...

... No power without pedalling, which must be a feature of any post-2015 legal e-bike ...​

Make of that what you will.

They seem to have cherry picked some things to be grandfathered in (twist and go) but not others (250W limit)

That's the one I just couldn't find it.

 

[mjr]

Cycling UK - who have lawyers and stuff so might be expected to be better informed than us - say:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/eapc-regulations
[...]
They seem to have cherry picked some things to be grandfathered in (twist and go) but not others (250W limit)

Indeed. The current law on use only says that the pedals must be capable of propelling, not that they be necessary to propel, whereas the power and assistance speed limits seem hard limits, with no higher power allowed, no matter when. The restriction preventing throttles on new bikes seems to be in the sale law only. The use law doesn't seem to mention them either way.

So a higher-power e-bike isn't legal to use now, whenever it was built, regardless of whether it ever was.

 

[presta]

But we're not actually talking about retrospective (making a past legal completed action illegal) but the current use of old e-bikes not conforming to the current rules.

What Raleighnut appears to me to be saying is that it's not subject to the current law because it was made before the current law was introduced, which is the usual state of affairs for new legislation. Like bikes that were made before pedal reflectors were made compulsory.

 

[mjr]

But they aren't company employees. They're self-employed workers, who can accept or refuse any job that comes in.

Equally, they're self-employed workers who don't have to be offered any job if they can't prove they're doing it legally. The delivery companies say they care, but they don't seem to care enough to actually require legal road use. Nor do the customers. They just want the food fast and don't care enough how many crimes are committed on the way to stop paying the scofflaws.

Besides that, it's not only delivery riders using these to get around. They just happen to be easier spot due to marketing. You see the bag, then the bike, then the rider. If it were in a car you'd not see the logo.

Yeah, I know, I made the same point earlier, so that's a TMN to me: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/increase-in-seizures-of-illegal-ebikes.299468/post-7275264

Except cyclists do see the bag in the footwell when we get close-passed or cut up, because most are high enough up to see down into cars.

 

[mjr]

What Raleighnut appears to me to be saying is that it's not subject to the current law because it was made before the current law was introduced, which is the usual state of affairs for new legislation.

It might be usual, but it only happens if it is actually written into law (often called a "saving" or a "transitional provision" or informally "grandfather clause"). Old things don't stay legal just because it's usual for such things to be written in. Stuff made before the current law is sometimes outlawed from some date forwards: for example, certain knives that are in the news this week. They used to be legal. Then they stopped. Now a period of tolerance or amnesty seems to be coming to an end.

Like bikes that were made before pedal reflectors were made compulsory.

That's only still in effect because it's written into Schedule 1 Table III of the current rules. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/1/made

 

[raleighnut]

Indeed. The current law on use only says that the pedals must be capable of propelling, not that they be necessary to propel, whereas the power and assistance speed limits seem hard limits, with no higher power allowed, no matter when. The restriction preventing throttles on new bikes seems to be in the sale law only.

So a higher-power e-bike isn't legal to use now, whenever it was built, regardless of whether it ever was.

Yep mine has the motor output engraved/etched onto the Hub motor along with wheel size* and voltage and no any e-bike with more than 250w has ever been legal in the UK.

* In theory buying a say 20 inch wheel kit then lacing a 26" or 700c rim would give a higher speed before the motor wouldn't spin any faster hence the rim size engraved/etched into the motor housing, there was also talk on some e-bike forums about illegal controllers allowing the 3 phase 'hall effect' motor to spin faster and 'over volting' to increase power but these never interested me as I wanted reliability and 11yrs later it has been trouble free

 

[classic33]

Equally, they're self-employed workers who don't have to be offered any job if they can't prove they're doing it legally. The delivery companies say they care, but they don't seem to care enough to actually require legal road use. Nor do the customers. They just want the food fast and don't care enough how many crimes are committed on the way to stop paying the scofflaws.

Yeah, I know, I made the same point earlier, so that's a TMN to me: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/increase-in-seizures-of-illegal-ebikes.299468/post-7275264

Except cyclists do see the bag in the footwell when we get close-passed or cut up, because most are high enough up to see down into cars.

There's not enough riders at present to meet peak demand. So why don't you start campaigning to stop deliveries by bike, and get customers(That piece highlighted in bold) to stop using them. Drop in demands for delivery should equate to a drop in the number of delivery riders/drivers required and actually on the road.

As for looking inside of cars(whilst cycling on the road) to see what is in them, I'd say your not paying enough attention to what is actually on the road whilst cycling. And therefore your attention is elsewhere. Leaving you not in full control, and an accident waiting to happen. Concentrate on the road, and other vehicles around you, not what's being carried inside them, when cycling on the road.

 

[Drago]

After near 3 decades of doing it for a living im still checking out every driver I see for seatbelt and mobile phone offences.

While that is a split second of time that could be spent eyeballing the traffic, it does give me an indication of the care and diligence (or lack thereof) that the driver is liable to display in my presence, and forewarned is very much forearmed when it comes to not dying.

 

[mjr]

There's not enough riders at present to meet peak demand. So why don't you start campaigning to stop deliveries by bike, and get customers(That piece highlighted in bold) to stop using them. Drop in demands for delivery should equate to a drop in the number of delivery riders/drivers required and actually on the road.

I'm quite keen on deliveries by legal bike, so I'm not going to campaign against stopping all deliveries by bike. I do ask customers to stop using the delivery services where illegal riding is rife.

As for looking inside of cars(whilst cycling on the road) to see what is in them, I'd say your not paying enough attention to what is actually on the road whilst cycling.

Their car is actually on the road while I'm cycling and I don't know about you, but I do tend to pay a lot of attention to any daffodil risking killing me with a shoot overtake or a left hook! That inevitably means I see what they're doing and the presence of the tell-tale cube. The rest of the traffic is best left to peripheral vision and instinct for a few seconds while I focus on the danger to life and limb.

After near 3 decades of doing it for a living im still checking out every driver I see for seatbelt and mobile phone offences.

While that is a split second of time that could be spent eyeballing the traffic, it does give me an indication of the care and diligence (or lack thereof) that the driver is liable to display in my presence, and forewarned is very much forearmed when it comes to not dying.

But @Drago, your attention is elsewhere(!) Leaving you not in full control, and an accident waiting to happen! Concentrate on the road, and other vehicles around you! 😉

 

[Drago]

I know, I'm a reckless maniac!

 

[vickster]

Not employees, so the Delivery companies don't care - not their responsibility. Classed as self employed.

Maybe so but they still have to provide right to work documentation
https://riders.deliveroo.co.uk/en/support/new-riders/document-check
And the Gov looking to crack down
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ce-security-checks-to-prevent-illegal-working

 

[Drago]

It's is quite normal now for companies to use the self-employed status of their staff as a means of dodging employer obligations, only for disgruntled employees to take them to court. In most cases the court is siding with the employees on a range of employment status rights/benefits/responsibilities claims.