BikeBiz

I am not really sure, whether gentleman from CTC and BAGB ever ask any electric bicycle driver over 220 lb what are their true feelings in the hilly area. The 0,25kW gives just not enough power for such weight. What is better – to keep overweight people in their cars or allow them to cycle using ebikes? ETRA is definitely not trying to put any dangerous devices on the roads in UK nor the rest of EU. Actually this is the case of the (just bankrupted) Ultra Motor / A2B Hybrid and more current e-bike producers - to put more powerful motors on their vehicles and just electronically maintain the 250W output with higher torque. I think the members of British electric bicycle association (BEBA) shall be explaining to UK officials what the nature of this “media fight” is: The classic bicycle companies just worry of their sales.

This question of safety puzzles me i.e. it is legal to sell very high powered motorbikes and 40 tonne lorries and yet the BAGB and CTC are woried about larger and more powerful electric motors! Oh no, speeds of up to 45kph ... whatever next? (It must be remembered that we in the UK use miles per hour and that 45kph equates to less than 30mph). Let me think, a high powered motorbike can reach 150mph and 40 tonners can cruise at 60mph. Perhaps these organisations should be lobbying about changing the regulations that allow big motorbikes and big trucks rather than the comparatively 'miniscule' power outputs of these electric vehicles.

The wretched thing about politics in this age of “sound bites” is the shallow and too often confusing presentation of the issues. This invariably leads to groups wasting their energy fighting one-another instead of working together and actually making some progress. I will confess to being alarmed by statements made by both sides in this debate. When I first read the BA letter I suspected the real cause for opposition to the EU proposals lay with a fear that they would lead to a loss of rights and privileges currently enjoyed with consequent damage and loss to the business interests BA represents. CTC's letter makes this more clear. Meanwhile ETRA has real issues that in themselves would never feature on a cyclists radar. There needs to be a lot more mutual understanding all round! The first thing this points to is the need for a more graded approach to classification with at least one new class between assisted cycle and moped. The second thing this highlights is the need to make a proper distinction between speed and power. While they are related they are not the same thing. As one commentator has highlighted power relates to mass as well as to speed. It is also worth remembering that the human powered speed record is currently somewhere close to 83 mph! While I can appreciate the tidy logic for 250W I for one would like to see this increased to allow heavier loads to be moved especially in hilly areas. The present technical solutions which cap the maximum assisted speed are equally valid for higher power motors. The mass being accelerated needs to be properly taken into account. The available power should be available for use where it is needed to get “heavy” weights in motion and to get the same weights up hills. This need is greater than realised if we are to get business and industry as well as consumers to move to a less energy intensive lifestyle. Had suitably power assisted machines been available commercially perhaps the Post Office would have been able to switch to more capable load bikes and trikes and still have maintained an active and therefore healthy workforce while minimising their energy usage.

Alan Bush says: "Perhaps these organisations [i.e. CTC and BAGB] should be lobbying about changing the regulations that allow big motorbikes and big trucks rather than the comparatively 'miniscule' power outputs of these electric vehicles". CTC is indeed doing exactly that. See in particular www.ctc.org.uk/nolongerlorries. CTC's policy briefings on goods vehicles and powered two wheelers respectively are at www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/CTC_GoodsVehicles_brf.pdf and www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/10_PTWs_brf.pdf respectively. You can read more about CTC's views on road safety issues at www.ctc.org.uk/safety, and pages linked from it. Roger Geffen Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

A bit late, but as this item remains a point of reference on this subject, I'll correct a couple of misconceptions. Kenneth Metcalf: Insufficient motor power is NOT the factor that torpedoed Royal Mail's plans to use electrical assistance. They were fine with 250W - even 200W (the technical UK limit) would have done. What killed the project was the arbitrary UK limit on the unladen WEIGHT of an electrically assisted pedal cycle, which CTC agrees should be removed as a matter of urgency. Jakub Dietrich: Leonardo da Vinci said: give me a lever long enough and a place to rest it on and I will move the world. Likewise a 250W motor is perfectly capable of moving a 220lb person on a bike uphill. All it takes is low enough gearing between motor and wheel. A bike for a 220lb person would necessarily be a special design anyway. Of course they'll not go up the hill as fast as a lighter person with the same available power. But that's just how it always is with cycling. Therein lies the incentive to keep slim and healthy. Finally: CTC is not opposed to the use of electricity to move people and goods. Far from it, we think it's a much more benign technology than internal combustion. Light electric goods vehicles and taxis should be encouraged by exempting them from some of the restrictions that apply to motor vehicles. Vehicle Excise Duty already does not apply and perhaps there are other things... But that's a discussion that needs to be had in a motor vehicle context. You cannot honestly pretend that something is a pedal cycle just because its engine is controlled by turning two pedals instead of pressing one!