Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
It's likely an employer would enforce that themselves in any case. That the likes of the Roo don't actually act like a reasonable employer would is something that really is for other legislation. We really do need to sort the "gig economy" issue out.
Yes a responsible employer should be requiring insurance and helmets, the latter to meet the requirements of health and safety law. The issue is with the gig economy where the workers are effectively self employed. An advantage of helmets is that they are a visible sign of compliance.
While true, the number of pedestrians killed by all cyclists in the last full year of data, was 4. I'm not going to downplay 4 deaths, but as with everything, a balance has to be struck.
It isn't just about death, it is about injury too. I know that if I collided with a pedestrian on my ebike they would be more seriously injured than if I collided with them on a pedal bike. Furthermore, for lots of elderly people, an injury can be the beginning of the end, and the death will rarely be attributed to the incident that triggered the decline. My own grandmother died 3 months after being hit by a cyclist: that event was what killed her, even though it wasn't on the death certificate.
It's likely an employer would enforce that themselves in any case. That the likes of the Roo don't actually act like a reasonable employer would is something that really is for other legislation. We really do need to sort the "gig economy" issue out.
You can solve that by just pulling up anyone who gets clocked going those speeds without a plate. I don't think its nessecary to put a bunch of restrictions on those with slower bikes, and i don't especially care much about whether they are pedalling or not as long as its under <20. The high speed electric dirt bikes you are probably thinking off aren't really used by delivery drivers, its the same chavs that would be riding round on unregistered "mini motos" 10 years ago.
I come late to this discussion (blame tariffs for that). I have been riding a legally compliant ebike for almost 4 years now.
The 15.5 mph/25 kph maximum speed for electrical assistance should stay, for various reasons:
many ebikes are manufactured for the whole of the European market, or use motors manufactured for the whole of the European market, varying our rules from theirs will increase the cost of new ebikes in the UK
There would not be a compulsion for the bikes to be capable of 20mph so this point makes little sense; there can be freedom of choice. It also ignores that many are made for the world market where higher speeds are permitted then just limited for the EU.
Generally speaking Policing of cars is undertaken on an "exceptions" basis. ANPR cameras automatically checking registration plates, and Police observing poor behaviour or faults.
There's no need for it to be any different for commercial bikes.
A commercial articulated bike powered by a strapping cyclist, two all-day batteries and 2x250W motors , carrying a 350kg payload doing 20mph downhill would be no different to being hit by a slim person driving a 2CV at 20mph.
15mph assist I think is enough- that's pretty quick, and you can lose a lot of skin hitting the road at that speed. If you want to pedal faster then fair enough. What i'd like to see removed is the power limit. As it stands, it pretty much rules out ebikes for fat (150kg) people like myself (perhaps one of the subsets of society that would most benefit from using them) that live in hilly areas. 250w isn't much use to a 150kg person tackling a typical County Durham incline. By all means, limit the assisted accelleration rate and max speed but allow higher power when needed. That way us chubbies might get back onto bikes without writing off our knees!
It did occur to me that one thing that could be added to the specification is a weight limit of say 30kg or thereabouts. Another thing you could do is a legal limit on the length of a trailer - typical bicycle trailers some people use for their shopping aren't even a metre long.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
15mph assist I think is enough- that's pretty quick, and you can lose a lot of skin hitting the road at that speed. If you want to pedal faster then fair enough. What i'd like to see removed is the power limit. As it stands, it pretty much rules out ebikes for fat (150kg) people like myself (perhaps one of the subsets of society that would most benefit from using them) that live in hilly areas. 250w isn't much use to a 150kg person tackling a typical County Durham incline. By all means, limit the assisted accelleration rate and max speed but allow higher power when needed. That way us chubbies might get back onto bikes without writing off our knees!
They are supposed to be electric ASSIST pedal cycles, to be fair. I'm the thick end of 130kg and I find mine perfectly good for assisting up hills - as is intended, the hills basically aren't there with the assist on. EAPCs are not intended to be motorcycles with zero effort being put in by the rider. There is already a class of vehicle for that - AM - though it needs modifying to include in its specification electric mopeds with the same capability (max speed 30mph) as well, because if I recall rightly at present it specifies only that the engine size can't exceed 50cc, which doesn't really allow electrics into the definition - and it very much should.
As a heavier rider you should probably look for a cycle with a mid-motor - that way when you change down a gear that also allows the motor to provide more torque at a lower speed, not just your legs. 250W with a wheel motor may well not work well for you. The two types of cycle do handle very differently, particularly with a heavier rider. If you want to try a mid-motor e-bike the TfL ones are set up like that, though admittedly only have three gears.
15mph assist I think is enough- that's pretty quick, and you can lose a lot of skin hitting the road at that speed. If you want to pedal faster then fair enough. What i'd like to see removed is the power limit. As it stands, it pretty much rules out ebikes for fat (150kg) people like myself (perhaps one of the subsets of society that would most benefit from using them) that live in hilly areas. 250w isn't much use to a 150kg person tackling a typical County Durham incline. By all means, limit the assisted accelleration rate and max speed but allow higher power when needed. That way us chubbies might get back onto bikes without writing off our knees!
As a 180kg County Durham e-biker I promise you my (completely stock) Orbea Karim copes fine with our hills. OK you're going to work up a sweat on a sustained steep ascent but the point is it's now actually manageable! As you're a lightweight in comparison I'm sure you'd be ok - try one and have a go
As a 180kg County Durham e-biker I promise you my (completely stock) Orbea Karim copes fine with our hills. OK you're going to work up a sweat on a sustained steep ascent but the point is it's now actually manageable! As you're a lightweight in comparison I'm sure you'd be ok - try one and have a go
I note that's a mid motored bike - I wonder if the previous poster has only tried wheel-motored which can be a bit useless with a heavier rider depending on how the motor itself is geared.
As a heavier rider you should probably look for a cycle with a mid-motor - that way when you change down a gear that also allows the motor to provide more torque at a lower speed, not just your legs.
I am talking at the systemic level rather than what risks I am personally comfortable running. How many 80 year olds with brittle bones are going to be mixing with 20mph e bikes somewhere they're not currently mixing with e.g. cars, anyway?
I am talking at the systemic level rather than what risks I am personally comfortable running. How many 80 year olds with brittle bones are going to be mixing with 20mph e bikes somewhere they're not currently mixing with e.g. cars, anyway?
Except that increasing the legal weight/maximum speed of an e-bike to 20mph, increases the potential impact of a collision by about 60% over that enciountered at 15mph irrespective of where the collision occurs. Just saying that it's illegal doesn't mean that some cyclists won't do it.
I am talking at the systemic level rather than what risks I am personally comfortable running. How many 80 year olds with brittle bones are going to be mixing with 20mph e bikes somewhere they're not currently mixing with e.g. cars, anyway?
In Cambridge, a lot, especially around bus stops. Cambridge has quite a few floating bus stops which are between the cycle path and the main carriageway.
And when you have a shared path, it isn't unreasonable to impose a speed limit.
Enforcement would likely be non-existent though.
When you have proper facilities (and we can do it) then you are given more freedom - although even then you can already see cycle rage with other cyclists given you how have some riding significantly faster than others. It's especially common when a cyclist stops at lights and those behind are enraged.
Except that increasing the legal weight/maximum speed of an e-bike to 20mph, increases the potential impact of a collision by about 60% over that enciountered at 15mph irrespective of where the collision occurs. Just saying that it's illegal doesn't mean that some cyclists won't do it.
In Cambridge, a lot, especially around bus stops. Cambridge has quite a few floating bus stops which are between the cycle path and the main carriageway.
It's likely an employer would enforce that themselves in any case. That the likes of the Roo don't actually act like a reasonable employer would is something that really is for other legislation. We really do need to sort the "gig economy" issue out.
When I was living in London, my observation was that the delivery riders were the main culprits for cycling on pavements, illegal non-pedal-assist bikes, running red lights, and doing ridiculous speeds.
They're paid per delivery, rather than per hour, so they have every incentive to break whatever law to simply make the delivery as quickly as possible so they can get their next pickup.
The companies take zero responsibility for them. In fact, because they're self-employed, they allow them to exercise a right to substitute, and then you've got untrained, and unchecked, and in all honesty often no right to work in the UK, riders taking what are legally classed as motor vehicles, uninsured, riding like twonks.
Contrast this with the likes of PedalMe in London, and their riders are like saints compared to Uber/Deliveroo. In fact last time they did their safety presentation, they had zero third-party injuries on record, and the grand total of collisions was single digits. But the difference is, they're provided with extensive training, a high quality, legal, e-bike, safety gear, hourly pay, equity, a pension, paid leave, clear routes of progression, etc. That said, they take a controversial stance on helmets! https://x.com/pedalmeapp/status/1489594692857647113
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes a responsible employer should be requiring insurance and helmets, the latter to meet the requirements of health and safety law. The issue is with the gig economy where the workers are effectively self employed. An advantage of helmets is that they are a visible sign of compliance.
Wearing a helmet is not automatically safer. Risk compensation from both the rider and other road users is the leading theory on why cyclists who wear helmets experience more injuries per mile than those who don't; and even those who switch from not wearing a helmet to wearing a helmet, end up with a higher collision rate.
An employer should absolutely have third-party insurance. Individual riders or their bicycles do not need standalone insurance policies. There's a whole other issue with the gig economy in that the likes of Uber, Deliveroo etc are exploiting "self-employment" to avoid their responsibilities. That needs cracking down on, but it doesn't mean mandatory bicycle insurance for people riding for work.
An anecdote I just remembered was taking our Scouts (Scout section and Explorers section, so 11-17 year olds, most on the higher end of that age range) to the Netherlands. One day we decided to hire some bicycles and cycle to Gouda (to buy some Gouda!) UK Scouts rules for cycling state that helmets must be worn by all riders. We actually had a Dutch scout ask us what's with the helmets, and we explained, and he thought we were very strange. I don't recall seeing any Dutch person wearing a helmet while cycling that day. Of course, Rotterdam to Gouda involves high quality physically-segregated cycle lanes.
Wearing a helmet is not automatically safer. Risk compensation from both the rider and other road users is the leading theory on why cyclists who wear helmets experience more injuries per mile than those who don't; and even those who switch from not wearing a helmet to wearing a helmet, end up with a higher collision rate.
These are quite bold statements; can you provide reputable evidence please? Reputable would mean from an organisation independent of the issue like RoSPA; an anti helmet campaign website would not class as reputable.
Isn't it the whole point that we do away with delivery trucks in cities and deliver the last few miles using articulated electric bikes?
One of these could carry 5-6 washing machines. If you had two people pedaling in a bike-tug, it could probably haul 2-4 powered articulated trailers. A 12 metre long articulated delivery vehicle powering along cycle lanes.
Is there any legal limit as to how wide a bicycle can be?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
These are quite bold statements; can you provide reputable evidence please? Reputable would mean from an organisation independent of the issue like RoSPA; an anti helmet campaign website would not class as reputable.
The vast majority of road accidents occur where the driver is below the speed limit and stone cold sober. Therefore, the safest way to drive must be blind drunk, and over the speed limit.
That's not correct. I have quite a few elderly neighbours who have moved to the Cambridge area recently to be near their family.. They find the large number of cyclists and scooter riders hazardous.
Wearing a helmet is not automatically safer. Risk compensation from both the rider and other road users is the leading theory on why cyclists who wear helmets experience more injuries per mile than those who don't; and even those who switch from not wearing a helmet to wearing a helmet, end up with a higher collision rate.
This is an old argument. Two examples that clearly worked were seat belts in cars and drink driving laws, both of which led to reductions in deaths and injuries.
These are quite bold statements; can you provide reputable evidence please? Reputable would mean from an organisation independent of the issue like RoSPA; an anti helmet campaign website would not class as reputable.
On the other hand, risk compensation has been demonstrated experimentally. This is a long time ago now, and I don't remember the source, but I remember reading about an academic research project that went roughly like this, I think conducted in Bath or Bristol.
The researcher fitted a cycle with sensors to record how close cars passed them when cycling. They then rode said cycle dressed as a man and dressed as a woman, each both with and without a helmet, recording how close cars were as they passed. Car drivers gave the widest berth to the woman not wearing a helmet and drove closest to the man wearing a helmet.
I grew up before helmets were a thing, but I did switch to wearing a helmet when I got the ebike. I do think that the risks are different.
On the other hand, risk compensation has been demonstrated experimentally. This is a long time ago now, and I don't remember the source, but I remember reading about an academic research project that went roughly like this, I think conducted in Bath or Bristol.
Risk compensation is certainly a thing and I don't dispute that (I can certainly attest that as a climber I'll do a lot more with a rope than without!), but the idea that not wearing a helmet is safer is I suspect not supported by evidence, hence why I've invited the poster that was implying that to provide some.
Of course it's possible (though I doubt it) that those wearing helmets are involved in more accidents but with an overall outcome of fewer KSI (killed/serious injury) ones, which would still be a good outcome. Sometimes road layouts are designed accepting that idea, e.g. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Magic Roundabouts in Hemel and Swindon have reduced the number of serious accidents at the expense of there being a few more very minor damage-only bumps (because they are confusing, but taken much more slowly than before), though I would struggle to evidence that so it could be false.
However it's also possible that the cyclists wearing helmets cycle in different settings than those not, for instance helmet wearing among club cyclists on fast main roads seems to be near 100%, whereas in the Netherlands for utility cycling as mentioned it's close to 0%. That may give rise to different accident statistics.
The researcher fitted a cycle with sensors to record how close cars passed them when cycling. They then rode said cycle dressed as a man and dressed as a woman, each both with and without a helmet, recording how close cars were as they passed. Car drivers gave the widest berth to the woman not wearing a helmet and drove closest to the man wearing a helmet.
I've not tried it cycling, but anecdotally I've found that when walking on country lanes a far wider berth is given when wearing hi-vis. So it's a complex issue.
I think it's more nuanced than e-bike vs. pushbike, but that will depend how you ride. Because my e-bike is so heavy, I'm unlikely to substantially exceed the assisted 25km/h on it, whereas if I was riding a fast, lightweight road bike (I don't own one, but if I was) I would likely be going much faster, and furthermore in a position with my head lower down, making me much more likely to go over the bars and hit my head in a collision rather than land on my feet. It feels to me that on the same roads a head injury is much less likely on a "sit up and beg" style e-bike than a non-electric road bike. But I doubt anyone has done proper research on this (if they have it would be interesting to see it!)
I can certainly see the logic in the risk compensation hypothesis.
If im just poodling around in London, I'm not going to wear a helmet. If I'm on my road bike and going to be going down long descents fast I'll have a helmet (and lycra) on. I find myself being much more careful going down descents without one on, even though at the speeds I'm going it's more a safety blanket than anything.
Risk compensation is without any doubt a thing. The thing I'm disputing is that it's enough to make, with everything else the same, a cyclist not wearing a helmet safer than one who is wearing one, and take the view that those who wish not to wear helmets but aren't willing to simply stand behind their own decision* are skewing the truth to justify their potentially more dangerous choice, either to their families or themselves rather than simply taking responsibility for using their right to choose an action that isn't the safest, as (within the law) any adult has open to them. "Because I like the wind in my hair" is a perfectly acceptable justification (after all people choose to do all manner of dangerous stuff because they enjoy it - scrambling, bold lead climbing/solo climbing, proper mountaineering, cave diving...) but making stuff up isn't.
* I am opposed to compulsion for pedal cycles and EAPCs other than possibly for children where I could be convinced on the grounds of reduced risk understanding, though when cycling as part of your job I'd say it's a choice for your employer as it becomes a health and safety at work matter. However I do think people saying it's safer not to wear one are just making things up to justify it. I don't generally wear one when riding hire bikes in London because carrying one just in case is a bit of a faff; I accept that that puts me at slightly higher risk of head injury than if I did.
Risk compensation is certainly a thing and I don't dispute that (I can certainly attest that as a climber I'll do a lot more with a rope than without!), but the idea that not wearing a helmet is safer is I suspect not supported by evidence, hence why I've invited the poster that was implying that to provide some.
Of course it's possible (though I doubt it) that those wearing helmets are involved in more accidents but with an overall outcome of fewer KSI (killed/serious injury) ones, which would still be a good outcome. Sometimes road layouts are designed accepting that idea, e.g. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Magic Roundabouts in Hemel and Swindon have reduced the number of serious accidents at the expense of there being a few more very minor damage-only bumps (because they are confusing, but taken much more slowly than before), though I would struggle to evidence that so it could be false.
However it's also possible that the cyclists wearing helmets cycle in different settings than those not, for instance helmet wearing among club cyclists on fast main roads seems to be near 100%, whereas in the Netherlands for utility cycling as mentioned it's close to 0%. That may give rise to different accident statistics.
I've not tried it cycling, but anecdotally I've found that when walking on country lanes a far wider berth is given when wearing hi-vis. So it's a complex issue.
I think it's more nuanced than e-bike vs. pushbike, but that will depend how you ride. Because my e-bike is so heavy, I'm unlikely to substantially exceed the assisted 25km/h on it, whereas if I was riding a fast, lightweight road bike (I don't own one, but if I was) I would likely be going much faster, and furthermore in a position with my head lower down, making me much more likely to go over the bars and hit my head in a collision rather than land on my feet. It feels to me that on the same roads a head injury is much less likely on a "sit up and beg" style e-bike than a non-electric road bike. But I doubt anyone has done proper research on this (if they have it would be interesting to see it!)
Roadie riding is certainly more dangerous, despite the largely urban population of this country, more cycle fatalities happen in the countryside. That's not fault the fault of helmets but the greater speed of traffic. Everything is too slow in London for me to be scared much.
Roadie riding is certainly more dangerous, despite the largely urban population of this country, more cycle fatalities happen in the countryside. That's not fault the fault of helmets but the greater speed of traffic. Everything is too slow in London for me to be scared much.
The 20mph limit in London certainly makes it a much nicer place to cycle (as does the ULEZ). Though (heading back to EAPCs) I think it'd be even nicer with assist up to 20mph (but not further*) because it would then be easy to fully ride with traffic on roads where there are no segregated lanes, and while it shouldn't be the case being stuck at 15mph in a 20 frustrates drivers, and frustrated drivers are dangerous drivers, so I think there could be a safety benefit there.
* 30mph is a Class AM vehicle, as noted above - it just needs the definitions tweaking. Electric mopeds are certainly to be encouraged, but with helmet, tax, test and insurance the same as petrol ones.
Second, there is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
