Forum menu
Nobody is arguing that they should be unrestricted just that 15.5 mph is too onerous a restriction.
I never said anything about "unrestricted" e-bikes, I said I believe 15.5mph is enough assistance in all transport settings, some seem to want 20mph, others want to split the difference at 18.
But that all misses the point, you're not "limited" to 15.5mph, the assistance you receive is, you can ride your e-bike faster, it just won't help you do it.
The argument most e-bike fans trot out when us "Haterz" start talking about motorbikes is that they only provide limited assistance, that they're not twist'n'go leccy motorbikes they're bicycles just supplemented, mostly for climbs, by a motor to achieve about "average" human powered performance levels for a bit longer without fatiguing the rider as much.
As soon as the assisted speeds start creeping up the "its still a bicycle just with a little help" claim falls over and those haterz will be all over it...
I never said anything about “unrestricted” e-bikes, I said I believe 15.5mph is enough assistance in all transport settings, some seem to want 20mph, others want to split the difference at 18.
But that all misses the point, you’re not “limited” to 15.5mph, the assistance you receive is, you can ride your e-bike faster, it just won’t help you do it.
It doesn't miss any point; we're asking for assistance up to a faster speed than 15.5 mph. 🙂
An 18 mph assistance limit wouldn't change the essence of e-bikes for example.
Better still just give them a power limit.
It doesn’t miss any point; we’re asking for assistance up to a faster speed than 15.5 mph.
Get a moped then. You want 18mph limit on eBike, another person will then want 20mph, someone else will then want 22mph and so on. There is a point where the speed limit moves it away from a bike and what an average person can achieve on a bike and it is no longer a bike.
That's fine, sell ebikes with limits of 30mph and have a requirement for test, insurance etc,.
An 18 mph assistance limit wouldn’t change the essence of e-bikes for example.
It would just mean you'd have folk doing 18mph full time on shared use paths. A speed which should see them on the road.
I've still to see any evidence of vast amounts of commuters on regular bikes doing >15.5mph mile after mile day after day.
I’ve still to see any evidence of vast amounts of commuters on regular bikes doing >15.5mph mile after mile day after day.
What's the evidential basis for 15.5 mph being the appropriate assisted limit?
It's the high side of the mid point between the recommended and maximum limits suggested for shared use paths.
What’s the evidential basis for 15.5 mph being the appropriate assisted limit?
First sensible question of the thread.
I believe it is as simple as copying what other EU legislation has already put in place.
So yes it does justify closer examination. But the findings of such an analysis may not be that an increase is appropriate...
15mph avarage is slow for a roady. Thats entry level club run speed, with 17av being inters and 19 being being fast group, over a 40 to 50 mile sunday ride.
18 mph on a shared path is a silly speed, rospa and police recommend 10 is the limit then pop onto the road. 15mph riles drivers, hell 20mph riles drivers and you have maybe 20 seconds before the revving and the looms start.
Beimg able to commute further and faster with electric aid has to be a good thing
18mph and a 100watt motor get my vote. Less watt motors weigh less and neef less amps hence smaller batteries that weigh less too, less inertia, less kinetic energy, cheaper to make, easier to package
15mph avarage is slow for a roady. Thats entry level club run speed, with 17av being inters and 19 being being fast group
average 15mph or so on my mostly flat commute on my hybrid
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It's complete ridiculous. Just because certaon people average y mph does not mean that e-bikes should be [effectively] limited to y mph on thé flat.
15mph avarage is slow for a roady. Thats entry level club run speed, with 17av being inters and 19 being being fast group, over a 40 to 50 mile sunday ride.
So you are talking about <1% of cyclists, not a great group size to use as an example in any debate is it.
What’s the evidential basis for 15.5 mph being the appropriate assisted limit?
What's the evidential basis for suggesting it should be 18mph?
If I was to petition for 22mph limit you would clearly be against it as 18mph is the "safe" limit. Can you please give me the reasons you are against having a 22mph limit?
What’s the evidential basis for suggesting it should be 18mph?
If I was to petition for 22mph limit you would clearly be against it as 18mph is the “safe” limit. Can you please give me the reasons you are against having a 22mph limit?
That's bad faith questioning since you're trying to put the 'burden of safety' on me without first assuming the burden for the 15.5 mph you clearly support, and I can't argue my case without first knowing the evidence and arguments that support the 15.5 mph assisted limit.
18mph and a 100watt motor get my vote.
100 w motor would not reach 18 mph for most iriders. 250 w struggle
Reasons for the 15.5 mph limit. It was a euro law and decision. In much of europe most bikes are used in urban situations on bike lanes. anything above 15.5 mph is too big a speed differential for bike lanes.
Also severity of crashing is down to momentum which IIRC is the square of speed. So the faster you go the worse the crashes.
Its already been seen that in europe there has been a significant increase in bike accidents down to old folk on ebikes.
You have to legislate for lowest common denominator
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It’s complete ridiculous.
Of course it is, good job nobody is trying to do that. If you were thinking a little harder you would see the correlation given it's easier for an ebike to maintain that 15.5mph average by virtue of design.
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It’s complete ridiculous. Just because certaon people average y mph does not mean that e-bikes should be [effectively] limited to y mph on thé flat.
Please stop conflating the end of assistance with a limit, there is nothing, at all, in this country or the rest of the EU preventing you doing 20mph or 2000mph on an ebike on the flat except the laws of physics.
For the love of God, can people stop conflating average speed with top speed. It’s complete ridiculous
Evidence please 😉
Signed in order to legalize my baby Robin killing STW frothing death machine and I want this angst ridden thread to overtake the Brexit page count which it will do at this rate.
Its already been seen that in europe there has been a significant increase in bike accidents down to old folk on ebikes.
I'd expect there to be more accidents involving bikes if more people take up cycling.
Its already been seen that in europe there has been a significant increase in bike accidents down to old folk on ebikes.
The US too, apparently.
15mph avarage is slow for a roady.
Is this true though? 15mph might be slow for a fast roadie, but even then you're only talking by a few mph (if that, depending on elevation). Group rides are not a fair comparison at all as you're getting assistance from the group which is easily going to raise your average by 1-2mph. And we're talking about a tiny proportion of cyclists who dedicate a fair amount of their time training their bodies to ride fast. And they only ride on the road.
The average person buying an electric bike is more likely to have an average speed of between 8 and 12mph ordinarily. Forget the edge cases for a second; the old roadie, the mountain biker, the 15 mile commuter (they're all hardened cyclists anyway, those are not the people we're encouraging to ride). Most of these bikes will be used on shared paths and around urban environments where even at 15.5mph the speed differential can be a real issue. Add a climb into the mix and your average utility cyclists might be doing 3-4mph while that electric bike silently whizzes past at 16mph, and in close proximity it can be genuinely frightening. You don't even need a climb. Imagine your gran setting off on her 3 speed Sturmey Archer. 20 kilo steel town bike. Those things take some getting going. e-bike accelerates from behind, straight up to speed in the smallest of busy streets.
I can't say it's an issue I've ever experienced in this country. We're quite late in adopting e-bikes and we're not big on utility cycling, using it as a practical means of transport. But I have experienced it elsewhere. You put lots of these things in a small space it soon gets pretty wild. If they were capable of speeds of 20mph or more it would be utterly mad.
Also severity of crashing is down to momentum which IIRC is the square of speed. So the faster you go the worse the crashes.
You mean kinetic energy? (1/2 mv^2)
Which if we work it out for and assumed say an 80kg rider + 20 kg bike (100kg, nice round figure) at 15.5mph its about 2400 Joules, at 20mph it's about 3900 Joules. So yes the potential increase in impact energy is exponential as speed goes up. But to put it in context a 1.5 ton car at 30mph is over 13000 Joules so motor vehicles are substantialy more dangerous still. But then cars aren't (normally) on shared use paths with earphone wearing joggers and meandering dog walkers, where I'd still be more concerned about reducing the available reaction time and increased stopping distances for faster moving assisted pedalers.
Then there's the PPE argument, polystyrene hats are arguably most effective up to around 12mph (at least that's about the level the mandatory testing goes to) so you could argue that every bit of assistance you give an e-bike user in going further above that speed the more you're risking their safety...
Ultimately its almost all as marginal as arguing that you "need" to go faster to "keep up with traffic" or to "get to work quicker" without expending as much energy...
At some point you just have to admit, you want to go faster on your pretend bicycle, because you like going fast and dislike effort, and it's just obeying the pesky rules that constrain you. At which point you've got to accept that you have more of a "motorist mindset" and you don't really want to ride bicycles... You just need a motorcycle.
As I've said before pedestrians should be more disciplined (like traffic) when using shared use paths.
If pedestrians or dog walkers want they can go and walk on footpaths or parks if they don't want to do this.
As I’ve said before pedestrians should be more disciplined (like traffic) when using shared use paths.
If pedestrians or dog walkers want they can go and walk on footpaths or parks if they don’t want to do this.
Get real. What Utopian world are you living in?
Well, the real solution is dedicated cycle paths and (protected) lanes. Just asking for this would have brought accusations of being a fool or hopeless idealist a few years ago.
In the UK we are improving things but the general solution has been to either force cyclists to share space with cars or pedestrians. Either way, there is a conflict.
For example, the TPT and Bridgewater canal towpath near me is both a functional commuter route and means of getting from A to B for many cyclists, in addition to being a recreational space for walkers, families, and dog walkers. One can see how this naturally promotes a conflict. Nobody asks motorists to share spaces with people walking dogs.
Keeping up with traffic, meaning cars aren’t constantly passing them, is probably one of the main things that will make people feel safer
Disagree. Traffic is doing 30 or 35mph, keeping up with it requires a high level of concentration and a lot of experience. Usually the people who are fit enough to do it are also experienced and competent. Typical leisure or occasional cyclists being catapulted to 35mph would be a recipe for accidents IMO.
I think some on this thread are conflating "need" with "desire". Because they "want" assistance to a greater speed than currently allowed they are stating it's "needed".
To use @i_scoff_cake's example of the Bridgewater Canal towpath, sticking an ebike on there that has assistance to 32kmh is madness.
That’s bad faith questioning since you’re trying to put the ‘burden of safety’ on me without first assuming the burden for the 15.5 mph you clearly support, and I can’t argue my case without first knowing the evidence and arguments that support the 15.5 mph assisted limit.
Irrelevant whether I support anything. I asked you (a supporter of 18mph) why you would not be a supporter of 22mph or 25mph or 30 mph. What are you reasons against it?
Keeping up with traffic, meaning cars aren’t constantly passing them, is probably one of the main things that will make people feel safer
The keeping up with traffic BS is also trotted out when somebody asks about getting a moped. Sir will be needing a 125 at least to keep up with traffic (so the 30mph moped is not fast enough)
Also the difference between 15.5 and 18 mph does not suddenly mean you are keeping up with traffic unless all traffic is doing 18mph...
For example, the TPT and Bridgewater canal towpath near me is both a functional commuter route and means of getting from A to B for many cyclists, in addition to being a recreational space for walkers, families, and dog walkers. One can see how this naturally
promotes a conflict.
& your solution to this is to increase the speed of electric bikes
Irrelevant whether I support anything. I asked you (a supporter of 18mph) why you would not be a supporter of 22mph or 25mph or 30 mph. What are you reasons against it?
I'm principally questioning the appropriateness and validity of the extant 15.5 mph assisted limit.
It's interesting that you don't do this yet demand those asking for an increase to justify any new limit, as if any difficulty they have doing this only increases the validity of the 15.5 mph limit (which it doesn't).
& your solution to this is to increase the speed of electric bikes
I'm asking why we have a blanket assisted limit of 15.5 mph. This applies just as much on an open road or dedicated bike lane as it does on a busy towpath.
Which if we work it out for and assumed say an 80kg rider + 20 kg bike (100kg, nice round figure) at 15.5mph its about 2400 Joules, at 20mph it’s about 3900 Joules
Crikey. Nice try, but you need to convert to SI units first.
As I’ve said before pedestrians should be more disciplined (like traffic) when using shared use paths.
If pedestrians or dog walkers want they can go and walk on footpaths or parks if they don’t want to do this.
Are you actually aware of how much of an entitled arse you sound like?
INVG just pipped me to that argument. Conflict is only promoted when folk can't behave appropriately. I've no issues with pedestrians, dog walkers, or other cyclists on the shared paths I use. That is irrespective of whether I'm on my way to work, or on a leisure ride. Even if I'm a little pressed for time. It's not my space - this is literally the name for these paths. I just try to be polite, and I've never had anyone give me any grief for asking (I'm no bell dinger) folk if I can pass. My average speed for a 3 mile-ish commute is between 10 and 14mph on the mountain bike and 15mph ish on the singlespeed hybrid. If I wanted to go faster I'd buy a proper road bike and use the roads more. I've deliberately slowed my commute to have a more chilled ride in to work.
At some point the proposed changes to the Highway Code will come into force, and this is a key point:
Cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians. Always remember that the people you encounter may have impaired sight, hearing or mobility, and may not be able to see or hear you.
Being able to accelerate up to 18mph pretty easily from a standing start, or a lower rolling speed, isn't likely to be considered in keeping with this aspect of the changes. It will also make it harder for pedestrians to do the following:
None of this detracts from the responsibility of all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety.
But, the nail in the coffin will be this:
Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks.Only pedestrians may use the pavement. This includes people using wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians.
And really, as it should be. We should all be able to amble about without waiting for the next cyclist charging past at near 20mph.
Definitely not signing.
Are you actually aware of how much of an entitled arse you sound like?
I'm not sure that's fair. I'm either forced to cycle on some extremely nasty roads near me (both busy and narrow b-roads with loads of blind corners) or take the TPT where dogs run all over the place, dog leads are a hazard, and some pedestrians walk 2 or 3 abreast like they own it.
There are places where walkers and dogs can go but cyclists can't, they are called parks and footpaths. The roads are de facto cars only. This leaves commuting cyclists short-changed and forced to fit themselves around the wants of others; only cyclists lack their own routes.
Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks.
I'm not quite sure what that means exactly.
It means pedestrians have right of way.
In reality, it means what it does now. If there's a pedestrian on the shared path, anyone with any sense will ride around them.
In reality, it means what it does now. If there’s a pedestrian on the shared path, anyone with any sense will ride around them.
How do you ride around them if they span the whole path?
I'm not sure this right of way idea makes much sense.
If two pedestrians are walking abreast and taking up the whole path, as a cyclist in the opposite direction, are you supposed to turn around and head back?
No. Increase the speed of your e-bike & you will be able to plough straight through them.
You only ride around them when the path is wide enough. If not, and they are moving away from you, then you ask if you can pass them (or ding your bell, or whatever). If they are moving towards you then you stop and allow them to pass, unless, as is pretty much always the case IME, they've moved to allow you space. The vast majority of people successfully navigate the world without conflict with everyone they meet.
i scoff cake - you give them a polite ding on your bell and they move out of the way 99% of the time. do it from 50m back to give them time to react.
I use a lot of shared paths and a bell used properly make life so much easier
But then I am a polite and considerate cyclist.
Crikey. Nice try, but you need to convert to SI units first.
TBF I did what most people would and just bunged it in an online calculator and rounded the outputs, seeing as the discussion is in mph not m/s it seems sensible to stick to what the audience will recognise... Still the broad point stands, faster means more energy with less reaction time and longer stopping distance. Which apparently formed the basis of setting the 25kph/15.5mph assist limit in other countries...
If two pedestrians are walking abreast and taking up the whole path, as a cyclist in the opposite direction, are you supposed to turn around and head back?
Hmmm, Substitute "pedestrians" with "cyclists" and "cyclist" with "driver" in the above, and you could be any angry Clarksonite on a DM comments thread... Like I said "motorist mindset", top trolling fella.
Oh aye. What INVG said! :o)