Pretty sure they would apply, the speed limit is for the road is it not unless specifically specified for other vehicles?

Speed limits are for ‘motor vehicles’ so bikes definitely don’t count, but I don’t know how that applies to ebikes.

“It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.”

the speed limit is for the road is it not unless specifically specified for other vehicles?

no, the speed limit is for (vehicles legally defined as) MOTOR VEHICLES only, doesn’t apply to bikes, horses, etc etc.

Local bylaws (only one I’m aware of is certain roads inside London parks) can limit the speed of bicycles but this would then be a police (not council, LA etc) matter to enforce.

Hence this: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cyclist-fined-for-speeding-in-richmond-park-after-he-is-clocked-at-38mph-a3102191.html

Superficial

Member
Pretty sure they would apply, the speed limit is for the road is it not unless specifically specified for other vehicles?

Speed limits are for ‘motor vehicles’ so bikes definitely don’t count, but I don’t know how that applies to ebikes.

“It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.”

Fair do’s you’d imagine for restricted ebikes it doesn’t apply then as they are classed as bicycles under the law, but for deresticted they will apply they as they need to follow the rules for mopeds.

Speed limits on normal roads do NOT apply to bicycles.

The only exception I’m aware of is in the royal parks where they do apply to bicycles.

Obviously, if your ebike is derestricted then it’s no longer a ‘bicycle’ in the eyes of the law, it’s a motorbike so speed limits apply.

Edit: posted at the same time as a couple of others

bails
it’s a motorbike so speed limits apply.

It’d be moped rather than a motorbike?

It’d be moped rather than a motorbike

Tbh, I don’t know the difference, would a powerful enough ebike cross from moped to motorbike, or do the pedals mean it’s always a moped?

In any case, it’s a motor vehicle so the speed limit applies.

A moped in uk, is a motorcycle which goes up to power output of 4kw / 50cc, the having pedals is not a defining feature. So an ebike of over 250 watts and less than 4kw will be classed as a moped, but is still a motorcyle.

A moped in uk, is a motorcycle which goes up to power output of 4kw / 50cc, the having pedals is not a defining feature. So an ebike of over 250 watts and less than 4kw will be classed as a moped, but is still a motorcyle.

Home come the gov site differentiates mopeds heres as between 25/km to 45/km. Only mentions the 50cc/4KW limit on 3 wheelers.

https://www.gov.uk/ride-motorcycle-moped/bike-categories-ages-and-licence-requirements

Where’s your info from?

Electric bikes and UK law: what you need to know

I did post this on page 1

Not guilty: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51707616

Not much more information than that at the moment.

Where’s your info from?

They’ve played around with it so often I’m surprised anyone knows it.

25km/h is 15.5mph, so the law is written that way to exclude e-bikes.

It used to be a limit of 50km/h (31mph), dunno when it changed to 45.

Seems the right verdict based on what I’ve read about the actual crash itself.

The bloke who got jailtime for riding a fixie into a pedestrian must be feeling peeved. Once it becomes a motorbike everything’s OK.

So they ignored the fact that he was speeding (arguably by enough to get a ban if in a car) on an illegal bike with [therefore] no insurance and no licence…. wow!

His reactions were quicker than many confident and careful drivers in the time it took him to react to her stepping out, which suggests he was keeping a good look out.

I don’t understand…. he didn’t stop or try to avoid her (even though she did run out in front of him) – in what way were his reactions quicker?

Does this open the door for everyone to ramp up their e-bikes’ power output?

edit: and lets not forget that he also left the scene of an accident!

The bloke who got jailtime for riding a fixie into a pedestrian must be feeling peeved. Once it becomes a motorbike everything’s OK.

Not really. On the video it is pretty clear that the victim in this case literally ran out in front of the e-biker & he couldn’t have avoided a collision (even if he was speeding on an illegal bike). In the case of Fixie-boy he had several seconds to react & chose to keep pedalling towards her while yelling abuse..

The bloke who got jailtime for riding a fixie into a pedestrian must be feeling peeved. Once it becomes a motorbike everything’s OK.

No, because he rode into someone having seen they were there and still didn’t stop/avoid them.

Vs the deceased running out in front of this guy.

So they ignored the fact that he was speeding (arguably by enough to get a ban if in a car) on an illegal bike with [therefore] no insurance and no licence…. wow!

No, he pled guilty to driving without insurance etc, the trial was for the “causing death while…..” part of the charge.

The speeding would be difficult/impossible to prove. You could measure the distance traveled between frames on the camera, but then when was the clock on the camera calibrated?

Does this open the door for everyone to ramp up their e-bikes’ power output?

See above.

No, he pled guilty to driving without insurance etc, the trial was for the “causing death while…..” part of the charge.

Ahh, gotcha.

and the speed bit…. true.

In the case of Fixie-boy he had several seconds to react & chose to keep pedalling towards her while yelling abuse..

Exactly which is why “Fixie-boy” was just a cyclist and the type of bike irrelevant so don’t tar all fixed gear riders with that brush (as I remember many people on this forum did at at the time)

I’m confused as to what the charges were. The BBC goes with:

“acquitted of causing death by careless driving and driving without a licence”

Whereas the Evening Standard:

“denied causing death by careless driving and driving while uninsured and unlicensed”

and old-bailey.com:

“denies causing death by dangerous driving”

Previous BBC reports included:

“denies further charges of causing death while uninsured and causing death while unlicensed”.

That last one requires the prosecution to prove that faults in his driving led to the death, so it’s reasonable to acquit on that if you’re acquitting on the death by careless.

So I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the two BBC reports and he was acquitted of death by careless and death while uninsured but hard to tell from the reporting.

Exactly which is why “Fixie-boy” was just a cyclist and the type of bike irrelevant so don’t tar all fixed gear riders with that brush

Well as it was a Planet X track bike, being ridden fixed, with no brakes fitted, the type of bike is quite pertinent. He also coughed it all on LFGSS just after the accident, a fixie riders forum, so fixie boy seems fairly spot on.

Exactly which is why “Fixie-boy” was just a cyclist and the type of bike irrelevant so don’t tar all fixed gear riders with that brush

Sorry Kerley, you still ride a bike on the road knowing that it does not meet the standards required by law. You may not ride it like a knob, but you still get the tar brush, it’s just a very small one. IMHO, I know it doesn’t align with yours.

Anyone found a link to where he plead guilty to the insurance and license charges?

From the earlier BBC article:

Both the prosecution and defence agree that Mr Hanlon did not have a licence or insurance for a motorbike.

But he denies further charges of causing death while uninsured and causing death while unlicensed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51647068

Although reading that back it doesn’t actually say he pled guilty to them, so maybe he was never charged with the lower offence?

Thanks. I really hope they did charge him with them or the de-restricters will be even more unbearable.

Wow, he had a good defence barrister. Must keep a note of her name!