E bike enforcement

[forest26]

Yesterday an enforcement officer took my details and photos of my e bike to file a report for using my e bike on the Elizabeth line, from Forest Gate to Stratford. I was apprehended as I was leaving at the ticket barrier at Stratford.

I was with my 10 year old daughter who hurt her leg so we asked at Forest Gate if we could get on with our bikes for 2 stops to Stratford. They said yes that it was allowed that day (Sunday). We also went past staff at the ticket barrier as we entered who did not say we couldn’t. There were no posters saying no e bikes or announcements. Unlike the Victoria line which make it very clear.

The officer did not apprehend me getting on the train, they asked me at Stratford where I had come from. I feel stupid for being so honest. As we had asked at Forest Gate and gone past staff at the ticket barrier at Forest Gate I thought it was ok. Also Forest Gate to Stratford is overground, so I thought it was much the same as the overground trains where you can take e bikes.

I felt I was being co-operative and honest. I gave my ID. Reading about this situation, the officers are supposed to Engage, Explain, Encourage but she then went immediately to Enforce.

I feel so stupid for being honest as there was no evidence. The evidence is what I said. In hindsight, I should have said I entered the station by mistake and was leaving.

I will go back to Forest Gate today to take photos as there were no posters or signs about not taking e bikes like there is on the Victoria Line.

I was co-operating and being honest which I think is a good thing to show my daughter. My daughter was extremely distressed by the attitude of the officers and was crying as she thought I was going to prison. I am very anxious too and have hardly slept.

I haven’t received the letter yet but wanted advice on similar experiences. If it is a £1000 fine I feel like I should engage a solicitor.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think we have ever seen a case about this sort of matter as the ban came in a matter of weeks ago. I assume the e-bike doesn't fold?

I suspect they will deal with this by way of a warning not to do it again, but you will have to update us if and when any letter arrives. It's not clear any offence was committed, but is us against their conditions of travel, which is a different matter.

 

[Swedenorer]

The fact that you were permitted entry indicates that those staff at least were unaware of the restriction.

The notes to editors on the Press Release say this:

• TfL staff will engage with customers to remind them of the ban. TfL's 450 uniformed enforcement officers will be deployed across the transport network ensuring that customers comply. Anybody who does not comply may be refused entry, directed to leave the network, or face a fine of up to £1000, if prosecuted under the bylaws

The staff certainly did not engage with you and remind you of the ban.

Poor staff training and signage then.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact that you were permitted entry indicates that those staff at least were unaware of the restriction.

The notes to editors on the Press Release say this:

• TfL staff will engage with customers to remind them of the ban. TfL's 450 uniformed enforcement officers will be deployed across the transport network ensuring that customers comply. Anybody who does not comply may be refused entry, directed to leave the network, or face a fine of up to £1000, if prosecuted under the bylaws

The staff certainly did not engage with you and remind you of the ban.

Poor staff training and signage then.

The staff who allowed the passenger onto the train may not have understood they had an e-bike. It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that they will pursue anyone in court at such an early stage of the ban.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect they will deal with this by way of a warning not to do it again, but you will have to update us if and when any letter arrives. It's not clear any offence was committed, but is us against their conditions of travel, which is a different matter.

Do we know which Byelaw they intend to use to enforce this? There's probably a generic enough one they can repurpose, like the way Merseyrail do for feet on seats.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do we know which Byelaw they intend to use to enforce this? There's probably a generic enough one they can repurpose, like the way Merseyrail do for feet on seats.

They could theoretically use the dangerous articles one in Bylaw 2, but I think this is also unlikely ever to be prosecuted in one off cases and especially not so early.

 

[Watershed]

TfL might ban e-bikes in their conditions of travel, but that doesn't automatically make it a criminal offence to take one on their network.

For it to amount to an offence they would need to demonstrate you were in breach of either TfL Byelaw 2:

2. Potentially dangerous items
(1) Except with written permission from the Operator or an authorised person, no person shall bring with him, attempt to bring with him or allow to remain on the railway any potentially dangerous item.
(2) A potentially dangerous item is an item which, in the reasonable opinion of an authorised person, may or may be used to threaten, annoy, soil or damage any person or any property. For the avoidance of doubt, a potentially dangerous item may include, but is not limited to:
(i) a loaded weapon of any kind;
(ii) any flammable, explosive or corrosive substance; and
(iii) any item which is or may become dangerous.

or Byelaw 12:

12. Safety instructions
(1) The Operator may issue to any person reasonable instructions relating to safety on any part of the railway by means of a notice on or near that part of the railway. No person shall, without reasonable cause, disobey such notice.

Given that you have said there wasn't a sign at Forest Gate advising of the ban, that would suggest Byelaw 12 cannot have been engaged. It is worth checking this though, and perhaps photographing any signs that do exist at Forest Gate as evidence in case it should be needed.

As for Byelaw 2, there is a bit more wiggle-room for TfL since they don't need to show that you were notified that the item was banned beforehand. It only needs to be something "potentially dangerous".

Given the ban is related to safety/fire concerns I think they would argue this is the case - but equally, I think they would face a rather large stumbling block due to the fact that you asked the staff at Forest Gate and they confirmed you could take your bike onboard.

Moreover, e-bikes have been around for decades and were considered acceptable for all that time, only now being banned. The ban also relates to the danger of batteries made by disreputable manufacturers which don't meet recognised standards. Presumably your bike doesn't fall into that category, so in reality it is not dangerous at all.

Given that context, can the enforcement officers' or TfL management's opinion that your bike is "potentially dangerous" be considered "reasonable" (a requirement for it to be an offence)? I'm not sure it can.

In any case you will want to obtain evidence of your Forest Gate staff interaction by submitting a Subject Access Request to TfL straight away, making it clear it's urgent because it relates to CCTV footage that will likely soon be overwritten/deleted.

 

[forest26]

Thanks so much for your replies. I will update if and when a letter arrives. I went to Forest Gate station and the no e bike/scooter poster was at the end of the platform, we hadn’t walked that far.

The staff member today was so helpful and immediately told me my e bike is not allowed. He said that emails come out but not all staff bother to enforce the info.

I have photographic evidence now if it is needed.

Thanks again.

 

[MotCO]

Thanks so much for your replies. I will update if and when a letter arrives. I went to Forest Gate station and the no e bike/scooter poster was at the end of the platform, we hadn’t walked that far.

The staff member today was so helpful and immediately told me my e bike is not allowed. He said that emails come out but not all staff bother to enforce the info.

I have photographic evidence now if it is needed.

Thanks again.

Was the only notice at Forest Gate on the platform after you had been allowed through the ticket barriers? If so, it seems strange, if not unenforceable, to have a notice prohibiting something only after you had purchased a ticket and been allowed onto the platform.

 

[ic31420]

They could theoretically use the dangerous articles one in Bylaw 2, but I think this is also unlikely ever to be prosecuted in one off cases and especially not so early.

TfL might ban e-bikes in their conditions of travel, but that doesn't automatically make it a criminal offence to take one on their network.

For it to amount to an offence they would need to demonstrate you were in breach of either TfL Byelaw 2:


or Byelaw 12:


Given that you have said there wasn't a sign at Forest Gate advising of the ban, that would suggest Byelaw 12 cannot have been engaged. It is worth checking this though, and perhaps photographing any signs that do exist at Forest Gate as evidence in case it should be needed.

As for Byelaw 2, there is a bit more wiggle-room for TfL since they don't need to show that you were notified that the item was banned beforehand. It only needs to be something "potentially dangerous".

Given the ban is related to safety/fire concerns I think they would argue this is the case - but equally, I think they would face a rather large stumbling block due to the fact that you asked the staff at Forest Gate and they confirmed you could take your bike onboard.

Moreover, e-bikes have been around for decades and were considered acceptable for all that time, only now being banned. The ban also relates to the danger of batteries made by disreputable manufacturers which don't meet recognised standards. Presumably your bike doesn't fall into that category, so in reality it is not dangerous at all.

Given that context, can the enforcement officers' or TfL management's opinion that your bike is "potentially dangerous" be considered "reasonable" (a requirement for it to be an offence)? I'm not sure it can.

In any case you will want to obtain evidence of your Forest Gate staff interaction by submitting a Subject Access Request to TfL straight away, making it clear it's urgent because it relates to CCTV footage that will likely soon be overwritten/deleted.

I think I would fancy a run in court with against a prosecution based on an ebike being a potentially dangerous item.

I would also see if I could interest The Cyclists Defence Fund or similar in supporting it.

I am sure I could have a good go at convincing a fellow ordinary man that penty of other things routinely allowed are demonstrably equally or more dangerous and ergo a switched off ebike built and maintained to relevent standards should not be classified dangerous.

 

[duffield]

...

I am sure I could have a good go at convincing a fellow ordinary man that penty of other things routinely allowed are demonstrably equally or more dangerous and ergo a switched off ebike built and maintained to relevent standards should not be classified dangerous.

Exactly, I'm very sceptical as to the legal soundness of language which amounts "if we say it's dangerous, it's dangerous". That means even if you are fully aware of the bylaw, you literally have no way to determine if you may fall foul of it. I wonder if it has ever been tested in court in relation to something where it's really a matter of opinion as to whether it is dangerous? And specifically banning any flammable substance? Cardboard, paper, loads of common materials which most people will have on them would all technically be banned!

 

[35B]

Exactly, I'm very sceptical as to the legal soundness of language which amounts "if we say it's dangerous, it's dangerous". That means even if you are fully aware of the bylaw, you literally have no way to determine if you may fall foul of it. I wonder if it has ever been tested in court in relation to something where it's really a matter of opinion as to whether it is dangerous? And specifically banning any flammable substance? Cardboard, paper, loads of common materials which most people will have on them would all technically be banned!

I can see the counter to that being that these are devices which have been at the centre of a number of fires, and that distinguishing between those that are built properly and those that are not is relying on expertise that railway staff lack. I'd expect most magistrates to defer to TfL on dangerousness rather than try to determine the issue.

However, the OP's issue is that permission was granted at Forest Gate before enforcement action was taken at Stratford. Demonstrating permission was granted is key

 

[AlterEgo]

I can see the counter to that being that these are devices which have been at the centre of a number of fires, and that distinguishing between those that are built properly and those that are not is relying on expertise that railway staff lack. I'd expect most magistrates to defer to TfL on dangerousness rather than try to determine the issue.

However, the OP's issue is that permission was granted at Forest Gate before enforcement action was taken at Stratford. Demonstrating permission was granted is key

Only written permission is a defence to a Bylaw 2 offence. But then again I really don't expect them to prosecute under that Bylaw, or at all.

 

[forest26]

TfL might ban e-bikes in their conditions of travel, but that doesn't automatically make it a criminal offence to take one on their network.

For it to amount to an offence they would need to demonstrate you were in breach of either TfL Byelaw 2:


or Byelaw 12:


Given that you have said there wasn't a sign at Forest Gate advising of the ban, that would suggest Byelaw 12 cannot have been engaged. It is worth checking this though, and perhaps photographing any signs that do exist at Forest Gate as evidence in case it should be needed.

As for Byelaw 2, there is a bit more wiggle-room for TfL since they don't need to show that you were notified that the item was banned beforehand. It only needs to be something "potentially dangerous".

Given the ban is related to safety/fire concerns I think they would argue this is the case - but equally, I think they would face a rather large stumbling block due to the fact that you asked the staff at Forest Gate and they confirmed you could take your bike onboard.

Moreover, e-bikes have been around for decades and were considered acceptable for all that time, only now being banned. The ban also relates to the danger of batteries made by disreputable manufacturers which don't meet recognised standards. Presumably your bike doesn't fall into that category, so in reality it is not dangerous at all.

Given that context, can the enforcement officers' or TfL management's opinion that your bike is "potentially dangerous" be considered "reasonable" (a requirement for it to be an offence)? I'm not sure it can.

In any case you will want to obtain evidence of your Forest Gate staff interaction by submitting a Subject Access Request to TfL straight away, making it clear it's urgent because it relates to CCTV footage that will likely soon be overwritten/deleted.

Really helpful, thank you. I will submit a request for cctv footage. Hopefully showing that I asked at the low down ticket office window whilst holding my bike and that I walked past a member of staff at the ticket barrier who looked at me.

The no e-bike poster was after you have entered the station and gone through the ticket barrier. It is at the end of the platform- nobody tends to walk that far down.

My bike is a standard, non folding e bike, it hasn’t been tampered with.

I’ve also since noticed that the info about bikes on the tfl network maps does not mention e bikes not being allowed.

 

[JohnofWessex]

My obvious question might be about the make and model. Following on from that does it comply with the relevant safety standards?

In which case how can it fall foul of Bylaw 2

 

[Twicklatic]

This does not help the OP, but has anyone thought about the bigger picture here? With the known concerns around e-bikes, it does raise questions about bringing them into shared spaces. There’s probably some responsibility on riders to be aware of where they’re allowed and appropriate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This does not help the OP, but has anyone thought about the bigger picture here? With the known concerns around e-bikes, it does raise questions about bringing them into shared spaces. There’s probably some responsibility on riders to be aware of where they’re allowed and appropriate.

There are only known concerns about the hacked-about e-bikes used by food couriers (which is the main reason for this ban). There are not "known concerns" around legal e-bikes manufactured by reputable manufacturers, sold as e-bikes and meeting the legal EAPC requirement. Indeed that's why folding e-bikes are still permitted - there are hardly any of these in "bodged" form, they're pretty much all premium brands e.g. Brompton and properly specified and safe.

 

[ic31420]

I can see the counter to that being that these are devices which have been at the centre of a number of fires, and that distinguishing between those that are built properly and those that are not is relying on expertise that railway staff lack. I'd expect most magistrates to defer to TfL on dangerousness rather than try to determine the issue.

However, the OP's issue is that permission was granted at Forest Gate before enforcement action was taken at Stratford. Demonstrating permission was granted is key

Pretty much all of the documented fire reports I can find involve batteries on charge. That's largely where the issue is and often this issue arrises with a problem with the charging equipement but manifests in the battery

Only written permission is a defence to a Bylaw 2 offence. But then again I really don't expect them to prosecute under that Bylaw, or at all.

Magistrates are funny old things and are often reluctant to convict, and cost their fellow decent ordinary man especially if the victim isnt another fellow ordinary man and where no apparent harm is present. They can often prefer the evidence of the defence even in unlikely circumstances. I've been on the losing side to some spectacular decisions with mind boggling reasons. With their worships turning and seemingly apologising for acquitting ".... its not that we didnt believe you, but...."

Anyway we digress and it is of course academic.

This does not help the OP, but has anyone thought about the bigger picture here? With the known concerns around e-bikes, it does raise questions about bringing them into shared spaces. There’s probably some responsibility on riders to be aware of where they’re allowed and appropriate.

It very much does and this, as will others, perhaps shows that the rules and (by)laws. Arnt yet perhaps mature enough, why is it that an ebike battery on a folding bike is not dangerous, yet the same battery on a standard bike is?

Its not just here we see the issues its across the board, with police left to use essentially S165a RTA to deal with Ebikes and scooters while in particular with scooters one could hire the same scooter and have no issues.

My employer has a number of eBikes which have been stored and charged in the building without issue for some years. Recently someone has decided that they cannot be charged indoors due to "fire risk" and a few £k has been spent installing an electrical supply to some outside space. Now they have just installed charger banks for batteries for our equipment inside the building. Each charger bank has more "battery" than a bike. But somehow thats fine and not a fire risk because e-tools arnt seen in the public eye as a fire risk. I gave one of the equipment batteries to the admin bod because it was swollen cracking and clearly faulty. For the last two weeks it has been sat on her windowsill. At least one bike battery after a winter of being charged in subzero temps is now faulty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It very much does and this, as will others, perhaps shows that the rules and (by)laws. Arnt yet perhaps mature enough, why is it that an ebike battery on a folding bike is not dangerous, yet the same battery on a standard bike is?

It's because the issue is bodged food delivery bikes, and almost none of those are folders due to the high cost.

Properly specified e-bikes are not a significant danger.

 

[ic31420]

It's because the issue is bodged food delivery bikes, and almost none of those are folders due to the high cost.

Properly specified e-bikes are not a significant danger.

Agreed. When I am king of the world, thats on the list for sorting out.

 

[Western Gaffer]

I feel so stupid for being honest as there was no evidence. The evidence is what I said. In hindsight, I should have said I entered the station by mistake and was leaving.

Academic now of course, but with even more hindsight, including your request for CCTV footage, it's hopefully obvious why it wouldn't have been sensible to concoct something verifiably not true!

 

[njr001]

I can’t remember if it was this site, according to a FOI request to TFL e-bikes are permitted if the battery is removed and carried separately despite the posters at most stations just saying there is a blanket ban on full size e-bikes Found link

FOI request detail

FOI request detail

tfl.gov.uk

 

[Jamiescott1]

I was stopped a few years ago for taking a full size non electric bike on a peak time EL train.
After the usual letter asking for my side of the story, I was let off with a warning

 

[forest26]

The TfL verification letter has arrived
I guess I have to reply on point 2 that I accept I committed an offence, even though I didn’t know it at the time.
When I searched online the day it happened, Google said it doesn’t matter that station staff let you through, you can still be fined or prosecuted.
I’ve attached the evidence I got the following day. Me asking at the ticket office, the barrier I went through where there was a member of staff. The poster at the end of the platform that I now realise doesn’t mention e bikes.
I’ve also attached the TfL cycle map which also doesn’t mention e bikes.
On Tues 5th May I submitted a SAR for the cctv at Forest Gate and body cam footage of the enforcement officer at Stratford.
To engage a solicitor at this stage costs £350-£800 which seems pointless if I then need to pay a £1000 fine as well.
Any advice on replying to this would be gratefully received, thank you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2026 ==

I have also received an email from London Underground about my Subject Access Request saying they don’t deal with the Elizabeth line and have forwarded my request to the Elizabeth line SARs team.
I think I need to be polite and apologetic.
We travelled by train as my daughter hurt her leg, so I might take a picture of her hurt knee too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2026 ==

I’m researching more and can see that non folding e bikes were banned on 31 March 2025 across the whole tfl network!

It is very clear you need to pay for travel and there are fare evasion posters everywhere. But the e bike ban is not clearly advertised. So frustrating.

 

[njr001]

Whilst you may have infringed the regulations by having your battery connected and travelled at a time when non folding bikes are not allowed
To Quote

TFL FOI-1026-2526 Published 01 July 2025
TfL Ref: 1026-2526

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 14 June 2025 asking for information about non foldable e-bikes.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we the information you require.

We can confirm non-foldable e-bikes without the battery attached may be taken on TfL services, including the Elizabeth Line. A non-foldable electric bike with the battery removed is in effect a normal non-foldable bike owing to the removal of the major “risk” factor which is the Li-ion battery. The carriage of Li-ion batteries is not recommended owing to the above risk profile.

It is important to note, there is still a restriction on non-foldable bicycles on the Elizabeth Line as outlined below.

Elizabeth line
Non-folded cycles are allowed Monday to Friday on trains:

• Arriving at Liverpool Street (from the direction of Shenfield) before 07:30 and after 09:30
• Leaving Liverpool Street (towards Shenfield) before 16:00 and after 19:00
• Arriving at Paddington (from the west) before 07:30 and after 09:30
• Leaving Paddington (towards the west) before 16:00 and after 19:00
• Between Paddington and Abbey Wood before 07:30, 09:30-16:00 and after 19:00

Weekends and bank holidays: Anytime
You cannot change to the Tube with non-folded cycles at some Elizabeth line stations:

• Tottenham Court Road for the Central or Northern lines
• Bond Street for the Jubilee line
• Paddington for the Bakerloo line
• Liverpool Street for the Central and Northern lines
• Stratford for the Central line

The current ban and restrictions will be reviewed on a regular basis and in light of any further data or incident information being made available.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely


Sara Thomas
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

 

[Mojo]

The staff who allowed the passenger onto the train may not have understood they had an e-bike. It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that they will pursue anyone in court at such an early stage of the ban.

FWIW, the ban has been in place for over a year now, since the end of March last year. I would imagine at an early stage they would have been more relaxed, but perhaps not any more.

 

[bananas]

There are not "known concerns" around legal e-bikes manufactured by reputable manufacturers, sold as e-bikes and meeting the legal EAPC requirement

I think there definitely are known concerns about e-bikes in general, because of the large batteries. The risk is not isolated to the "hacked" ones. Well designed and certified e-bikes probably do pose little risk, but it's not easy to tell whether a bike is certified, there are many fake certified bikes on sale, and certified bikes' batteries can be unsafe if they get damaged.

I think it is perfectly sensible to ban all e-bikes on trains because of these risks; it would be too hard to decide what ebikes are "safe" and thus too hard to enforce.

 

[AlterEgo]

FWIW, the ban has been in place for over a year now, since the end of March last year. I would imagine at an early stage they would have been more relaxed, but perhaps not any more.

Hmm, yes, there was me thinking it was still 2025!

 

[jupiter]

Forgive me, I don’t normally reply in these threads as I’m not an expert in this area but I do follow and study them. In this case it seems no details of the alleged offence are given. How can you possibly comment if you don’t know (in writing) exactly of what it is you are being accused?

 

[AlterEgo]

Forgive me, I don’t normally reply in these threads as I’m not an expert in this area but I do follow and study them. In this case it seems no details of the alleged offence are given. How can you possibly comment if you don’t know (in writing) exactly of what it is you are being accused?

This is entirely standard for TfL, unfortunately. If you don't reply they prosecute you by default.