You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Seems reasonable to me.
It could be one-step closer to any bicycle needing it though
Car manufacturers have been lobbying hard for this - e-bikes reduce a big hurdle to switching to cycling for local journeys for a lot of people.
Next: "How can we tell you're insured? Best fit some sort of ID number to you or your bike. How can we tell if the bike's safe? Some sort of annual inspection is the only way."
Slippery slope....
mind you, do we care as we’re leaving??
However, individual EU states can, if they so choose, exempt e-bikes from the decision
That
However, I have no issue with this. I LOVE the idea of e-bikes but I commute daily in a city and I see a lot of e-bike riders doing dangerous moves. Moves that a regular rider at that speed wouldn't take (or at least I don't see them doing so) because it would be dangerous. We (Belgium) already have different grades of e-bikes and a requirement for a driving licence for that fastest ones so this is a logical extension
Have an ebike and wouldn’t be that bothered about insuring it, other than it might encourage more litigious behaviour towards cyclists in general, and yes I think it does move insurance for cycles a step closer.
More concerned about the requirement to be insured on private land to be honest, but that issue has been out there for a while....
Against it on a fundamental level, although here in Spain I'd say a majority 'enthusiast' cyclists already have 3rd party insurance through the fedaration - membership is very high, AFAIK a much higher percentage than BC membership.
The city cycling / commuter demographic which is more likely to buy into ebikes are very much apart from that of course.
It could be one-step closer to any bicycle needing it though
I already have it via house insurance as anyone with such insurance will have.
Third party liability insurance is something I think everyone should have generally in life.
Bike registration numbers though - no. e-bikes? Tricky. If they're road commute/delivery bikes then maybe. Leisure road/off-road bikes, definitely not.
Third party liability insurance is something I think everyone should have generally in life
+1 either through government or private schemes offered by the likes of bmc or BC. The question of who funds compensation if you make a mistake is huge.
I used to commute in Fareham; dangerous cycling is most definitely not restricted to eBikers...
I'm against it as an eBiker and a cyclist. It won't stop at eBikes, that's for sure.
thank **** we are leaving that nightmare
thank **** we are leaving that nightmare
Yeah because making sure that people can cover the cost of their actions is a bad idea...
You either need state cover for victims of accidents where negligence or fault can be proven or insurance.
Little old lady with the dog on the extender lead, clothes lines cyclist leaving them off work with a broken bone for a few weeks, wrecks new bike
Cyclist misjudges conditions and hits a group of people
Runner with headphones in steps in front of cyclist...
Want the bill for one of those?
Few people don’t appear to have read the report
”and has effectively banned pedelec use without insurance usually reserved for motor vehicles”
So it’s not just 3rd party liability like you have with house ins, it’s a motor vehicle insurance that would be required.
“The use of these new types of electric motor vehicles in traffic has the potential to cause accidents whose victims need to be protected and reimbursed swiftly."
Wonder who they’re talking about there.. people in cars getting hurt by ebikes? or pedestrians and other cyclists? in which case any bike has the potential for this.
I don't imagine there are any stats but I suspect there a lot of ebike riders that aren't experienced cyclists, and may be more prone to causing collisions.
I can't see this extending to all bikes for a long long time .
I agree, I mean, it wouldn’t be enforceable in most eu countires anyway (Holland?!)
It’s just so poorly worded!
How does a ~22Kg e-bike, limited to 15.5mph of power assistance in the UK, suddenly become a life threatening mode of transport to other people... Compared to ~9Kg road bikesbikes trave up to ~25mph on flat terrain... Compared to 1+ tonne cars capable of exceeding all UK road speed limits, sometimes driven by people using them as lethal weapons against cyclists and other vulnerable road users?
Normal bikes will never be subject to registration and insurance.
Imagine having to get insurance for a 5 year old to ride their bike through the park? When there is a childhood obesity crisis? And the roads are congested so the government is trying to get more people to travel by bike?
An e bike is already subject to significant additional legislation and you have to be over 14 to ride one on the roads. Still can't see mandatory registration though as the admin costs would be enormous and the benefit insignificant.
Any adult who rides on the roads should have insurance anyway.
Yeah because making sure that people can cover the cost of their actions is a bad
Then why are bikes not currently required to have insurance then for riding on the road? The fact that it is an ebike is irreverent unless it works without pedalling of has its assistance limited removed
DezB beat me to it on the fact<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> that it has to be a motor vehicle policy with all the potential complications that may bring on disclosure etc. </span>
Ultimately the EU has decided that an e-bike is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the legislation and it now has to go to the EU parliament as I understand the process.
At a wider societal level I question the wisdom of following this route.
The much needed modal shift away from cars as a mainstay of daily transport to bring net pollution, sustainability and health benefits to the population needs to see barriers to entry removed not added and if insurance is going to be mandated then the market needs time to get appropriate products together and to market them simply.
There is then the question of the state bearing the losses of e bike accidents against the saved health service costs and possible long term infrastructure cost savings of reducing car use as well as the ability to enforce and monitor which would require the creation of an IT and registration infrastructure to support it although I gather NI may already have insurance requirements.
**insurance companies starting to rub their hands together** now what ridiculous price can we charge for that insurance....
So it’s not just 3rd party liability like you have with house ins, it’s a motor vehicle insurance that would be required.
Unlikey that e-bikes would be cassifued as a motorised vehicle under the Road Traffic Act, there for no need for RTA insurance (the most basic form of motor insurance) and your 3rd party liability would be fine (given sufficient limits of indemnity)
for a power assist e-bike anyhow
Why would you not have insurance? Cycling is risky and accidents can happen.
There is no way in The world push bikes are getting rag plates and mots.
Reading the title of this thread and the title of the article is really misleading.
The last paragraph:
It's important to stress that this is not yet a done deal – the Commission's recommendation has to be voted through by the European Parliament, something which could take many months. MEPs will be lobbied hard not to include e-bikes in the way suggested.
Here in mainland Europe this would be a huge deal. Less so perhaps for island Europe.
How is this relevant to 'normal' e-bikes?
My understanding is that they are limited to a max of 15mph with assistance. I can pedal my non e-bike faster if I really try, and road bikes can go faster than that - do road bikes need insurance?
Is this aimed at the unrestricted 40/50mph battery powered bikes with pedals? The [URL= http://www.fullycharged.com/Bultaco-Brinco-Electric-Bike ]Bultaco Bronco[/URL] which is basically a pedal assisted MX bike?
Or these thing, which as I understand are illegal in the UK anyway:
[img] 
[/img]
The whole e-bike thing is getting muddied.....
I see the good and bad here. Insurance is a serious consideration these days when people’s understandable demand for restitution for any mishap has lost control a little with its scope at times. It’s a long time since it was just about paying to have a panel knocked out at a reasonable price and now an accident claim will frequently outstrip peoples’ individual ability to pay for it. As cyclists we expect to be able to claim for our misfortune and so others should be able to when we are in the wrong. Many of us are already insured either through Home policy or something like BC membership - something the average angry driver ranting seems not to comprehend.
Are ebike pedelecs really changing rider behaviour or is it more that they are encouraging people who don’t have years of experience surviving amid the boxes into the road on bicycles? Either way, if the perception is that dangerous riding is increasing that’s bound to light some fuses.
The bottom line here is that there is a movement to begin treating bikes ridden in public as any other vehicle. Clearly that’s not desirable and will be almost impossible to enforce but I can see how it comes about and even if it goes nowhere now I guess it will be back round later...
It could be one-step closer to any bicycle needing it though
First reply nails it.
But I suspect that an exception for pedelecs below a certain spec is far more likely. If not… those who press for (a certain class of) pedelecs to be treated the same as motor free bikes might need to consider the unintended consequences of that.
Oh, and having similar requirements across EU roads might seem an odd idea to confused of Surrey, but less so to people commuting across the NI border.
Still needs to get voted through by the EU parliament so a while to go yet on this.
Its a stupid idea mind you. Sense should prevail.
but less so to people commuting across the NI border.
All ebikes need to be registered tax and insured as a moped in NI i'm sure.
It appears that Carlton may have over stated the situation.
There still needs to be legislation from the EU Parliament and approval by council of ministers.
I see the good and bad here. Insurance is a serious consideration these days when people’s understandable demand for restitution for any mishap has lost control a little with its scope at times. It’s a long time since it was just about paying to have a panel knocked out at a reasonable price and now an accident claim will frequently outstrip peoples’ individual ability to pay for it. As cyclists we expect to be able to claim for our misfortune and so others should be able to when we are in the wrong. Many of us are already insured either through Home policy or something like BC membership – something the average angry driver ranting seems not to comprehend.
I guess the desire for restitution is somewhat unbalanced due to people not really caring what is and is not "reasonable" (or perhaps polite). Part of this IMHO is at least partially due to the idea that I pay insurance so I expect something to be made "good as new".... by another parties insurance whereas had they done a similar minor scratch etc. they would not have bothered.
To illustrate what i mean is you have a reasonably well used car with a couple of scratches perhaps down one side then for one reason or another get a scratch at the other side by another party... despite this making no odds to the value of the car they claim anyway because "it's insurance paying"... and of course today as you say the days are ling gone when most panels could just be pulled out and pre-colour coded bumpers etc.
I have to admit... I got a whole new bumper because a delivery van reversed into my bumper ... but its hardly changed the car ... It's still got the same scratches as before and a borked roof from driving a bike under a height barrier... most of the cost was the spraying of the colour coded bumper and refitting the parking sensors etc.... not the only very slightly cracked bumper... itself...
Quite honestly I'd have preferred the money was spent repairing the roof mounts () or even half of it put towards that)... but of course the garage where the car is instead just claimed and repaired something that really didn't need repairing and I wouldn't have paid my own money to repair.
Ultimately everyone has to pay for this behaviour unless you somehow have NO insurance of any type... it's going to be reclaimed from consumers somewhere.
I'm not against the insurance per-se... more commenting on how people expect to get paid back... and I think cars are a good example because the insurance is compulsory... hence I think that drives more claim for everything and anything behaviour. I rather think that making e-bike insurance compulsory will drive the same from both sides...
Are ebike pedelecs really changing rider behaviour or is it more that they are encouraging people who don’t have years of experience surviving amid the boxes into the road on bicycles? Either way, if the perception is that dangerous riding is increasing that’s bound to light some fuses.
A bit of both perhaps?
There are a set of people who think it's OK to drive a car or ride a motorbike faster than is safe...
Equally there are lots of commuters who think its acceptable for them to race into work... as fast as they can BUT that's acceptable because they ride a bike not a motorbike or drive a car. The fact their stopping distance is a lot further than a car doesn't seem relevant... something I find puzzling as they are much more likely to be seriously hurt in any collision... be it with another bike or a car...
I think in part e-bike's change more of the happy to leisurely ride in and not get too sweaty into how to ride a constant 15mph..(keeping the maximum speed with pedel assist). regardless of conditions etc...
Equally it may well also be more attractive to people who don't cycle in ... and have little or no experience cycling on roads for decades.
The bottom line here is that there is a movement to begin treating bikes ridden in public as any other vehicle. Clearly that’s not desirable and will be almost impossible to enforce but I can see how it comes about and even if it goes nowhere now I guess it will be back round later…
I'm not sure desirable and enforceable are linked.
I think its certainly desirable that if you hit someone on a bike (electric or not) and they end up in a wheelchair or even miss 6 weeks of work that they are compensated... and damages for putting someone in a wheelchair are pretty much more than most people will ever pay. What I find undesirable is the claim lawyer type claim where someone isn't seriously hurt at all but they are looking for other damages... or the equivalent of the whiplash claim.
Sadly in today's claim happy world I don't think its possible to have one without the other.
The fact their stopping distance is a lot further than a car
Is that right? I've been under the impression that it was the other way round (accepting that there's probably more variation in braking capabilities between different types of bikes). Genuine question.
Right then, I have looked up the law. Just a bit.
The current EU law is a Directive - ie an order from the EU to member states to make their laws on motor insurance conform to certain standards with teh object of ensuring we no longer need to get extra insurance when we drive our cars in other EU sttes. Yay!
That was passed before the recent e-bike explosion (damn Li-ion batteries), and says all powered things on roads should fall within the scope of the Directive. The ECJ has (according to the memo from the Commission) previously ruled that e-bikes (apparently even ones falling within the EU law about those e-bikes that can be used legally on roads without type-approval etc.) are within the scope of the Directive. So this has been the law for a while, but I guess all those industry watchers are feeling sore that they didn't actually run a story about it when the case came out, so are bigging it up as a change which just happened in order to save face. I haven't found the actual court judgment yet. Boo!
But the Directive always did allow member states to exempt certain specific types of vehicle and driver from the requirement for compulsory insurance provided they notify the Commission what they have done and that their national scheme for providing compensation in the case of uninsured drivers (the Directive requires states to have one, most states already did anyway) covers accidents caused by such exempted drivers or vehicles. Yay!
Some states have picked up on the ECJ decisions about what the Directive means and have specifically notified the Commission that their laws do not require insurance for e-bikes. Austria for instance - there is a list (don't know how up to date) here. But the UK hasn't apparently notified any exemptions, though it has some (see below). The UK is in breach of EU law by not notifiying the Commission <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Boo!</span>
However, remember this is a Directive, it is not binding on individuals*, only on member states. UK law has expressly excluded "pedal assisted cycles" from the insurance provisions as a result of the definition in s. 189 of the Road Traffic Act 1989. <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">So although UK has been a bit naughty in not notifying, the actual exclusion of the insurance requierment in teh case of e-bikes is lawful. Yay!
It is a bit pants that all the commentators are spinning the story as a big deal when it really is simply "carry on as we are".
*Because the relevant provisions of this Directive are clearly not directly effective
A decent rider can stop a bike from 30 mph as quick as a car. I know I have actually tested this. I was getting significantly under the (out of date) highway code distance consistently.