"E-Bikes are bicycles, not motorbikes": EU Court rules e-bikes as not capable of causing "damage comparable to motorcycles"; Chris Froome’s new bike with disc brakes; £32k karma for not restoring cycle path; Penny-farthing stunts + more on the live blog

Ride On wrote:

YES! Almonds and dark chocolate are officially a health food.

Thank Gawd for that - I gobbles loadsa very dark choc and all sorts of nuts, in addict-fashion. What do they say about coffee beans and the fine liquors one can produce from them?

I often wonder what would happen if I stopped greeding at such stuff but it may be awful ... so I don't.

The comments are fun

SNORK wrote:

I hope there's a clear sign saying "No cars", because I've never heard of a "car trap".

and the reply (that they would also get if it was on road.cc):

IAMRIGHT2021 wrote:

If I see a sign that says “car trap” then i tend to surmise that it is a trap for cars….. I’m intuitive like that

Key point at bottom of article:
"
Cllr Kevin Reynolds from Cambridgeshire County Council has admitted he has little sympathy for the drivers who get stuck.

He said: ‘If people driving along that road cannot see a big hole in the ground in front of them then I would argue they wouldn’t be able to see a small child.

‘I would question whether they should be behind the wheel at all…’
"

I wonder in Cllr Reynolds will be so cocky when a cyclist or motorcyclist hits that and ends up in hospital, or the morgue? But then I guess it won't be his head on the line and he'll just pass the buck to his council officers. The only point of that seems to be to cause damage . Inevitably it will cause injury and that has to be contemptible.

I had a look at the junction on Streetview. As one approaches the car trap there are at least 3 'dead end' signs, and the car trap sign (scary!), and red paint on the road, and I think two Buses Only legends painted on the road surface. Oh, and a bloody great hole in the road itself.

So yeah, sympathy in short supply.

In the comments

"These are the kind of people that follow their satnavs over cliffs."

"What if in an emergency an ambulance took the route?"

Then there is no way on earth they should be driving an ambulance with that level of observation !

HoldingOn wrote:

ahhh there we go. Friday 13th, but a mass-cycling video to see me though.

It was a bit too rainy to spot Steve K though...

I've not ridden today as Friday 13th is my wfh day.

However...

... that video was filmed yesterday

... and I know Rory and his office is very near mine

... and I did ride in yesterday

... but that's not on my route

... until November, when we move office, and then I will go over London Bridge

... but then my office will no longer be near Rory's.

I hope that clarifies things.

...so in November, if Rory posts a "wait until the p***ng snow, there'll be no cyclists..." video - you may be on his route at the same time as him and therefore appear in his video, but you won't be able to pop over and say hello to him.

By the way - in my head, i have concocted a "Steve meets Rory" scenario, where you both arrive at the office at the same time and notice each other across the street, parking your bikes. A quick finger point "Hey!" and swap names. Rory goes off to his office thinking "strange i've never seen Steve in any of my videos"

If you are going over London Bridge, you may meet the silly cycling columnist from the Spectator.

Miller wrote:

The ruling said: "The bicycle’s motor merely provided pedal assistance, including through the use of a ‘boost’ function. Moreover, that ‘boost’ function could be activated only after the use of muscular power (by pedalling, by walking with the bicycle or by pushing it)."

Increasingly for the ebikes I see nowadays that definition does not hold true. They are throttle-controlled so pedalling is not necessary. That applies to all the bodge-job delivery bikes and I think also to quite a lot of the strange fat-tyred ebike/motorbike/shopper hybrids that I see on the streets more and more. Their riders may be resting their feet on pedal-shaped objects but they sure ain't doing any pedalling.

In those instances, they are not e-bikes and are instead electric motorbikes which require number plates and insurance etc.

It's interesting that the police have no desire to crack down on those electric motorbikes - it would be simplicity itself to turn up to a food delivery place at peak time and arrest a bunch of people arriving on them. I would guess that they cause far fewer problems than all the legitimate motor vehicles that are driven so poorly.

I think the willingness to crackdown varies by force.

IIRC Durham and Cardiff do confiscate, and Royal Parks police recently?

Notts police have a couple of police off-road bikes, and have been seen to intervene, but only iirc give words of advice - not worth the paper they aren't written on.

Personally I see illegal Surrons regularly, especially through anti-motobike barriers, usually being ridden sensibly but with a number of young hoons around.

Vastly annoying and frequently highly dangerous they are too, but they are illegal electric motorcycles, not PAS ebikes.

But there do seem to be an awful lot of them...  Usually being ridden by blokes wearing a balaclave and with a Deliveroo style box strapped to their backs.

brooksby wrote:

But there do seem to be an awful lot of them...  Usually being ridden by blokes wearing a balaclave and with a Deliveroo style box strapped to their backs.

I know, the police in London could wipe out the scourge almost immediately just by spending a few minutes outside popular collection points for Deliveroo etc but they're not interested. A while back I was riding up Finborough Road Chelsea at about 25 mph with a police car in the lane to my right keeping pace with me, suddenly one of those bikes shot between us and off up the road at least 40 mph. I gestured to the officers in a sort of "there's an easy pinch for you" way and the passenger just shrugged as if it was nothing to do with them.

Deliveroo and all similar companies should be made legally accountable for their employees having legal ebikes, in my opinion: a £5000 fine for the company for every employee found riding an illegal bike would soon sort matters out.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I know, the police in London could wipe out the scourge almost immediately just by spending a few minutes outside popular collection points for Deliveroo etc but they're not interested. A while back I was riding up Finborough Road Chelsea at about 25 mph with a police car in the lane to my right keeping pace with me, suddenly one of those bikes shot between us and off up the road at least 40 mph. I gestured to the officers in a sort of "there's an easy pinch for you" way and the passenger just shrugged as if it was nothing to do with them.

Deliveroo and all similar companies should be made legally accountable for their employees having legal ebikes, in my opinion: a £5000 fine for the company for every employee found riding an illegal bike would soon sort matters out.

I don't think trying to fine Deliveroo for their employees would be any more successful - if the police don't care to catch the riders, why would they care to submit loads of paperwork to Deliveroo?

Obviously I'm thinking of an ideal world where the police would actually do their job!

Rendel Harris wrote:

Obviously I'm thinking of an ideal world where the police would actually do their job!

Unlike the police van during my lunch time walk, who drove very slowly past a lorry parked on the pavement, that had completely blocked it off (they had folded the side mirror in to get even closer to the wall) and just carried on going...

Rendel Harris wrote:

Obviously I'm thinking of an ideal world where the police would actually do their job!

Yeah, I just don't see how making Deliveroo accountable would add anything.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yeah, I just don't see how making Deliveroo accountable would add anything.

Because if the company knew that they were going to be fined £5000 for every non-compliant bicycle used by their employees and that someone would be checking (needn't even be the police, could be local council officers), they would make damn sure they had some inspectors on the ground checking and refusing to employ anyone who didn't use one.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Because if the company knew that they were going to be fined £5000 for every non-compliant bicycle used by their employees and that someone would be checking (needn't even be the police, could be local council officers), they would make damn sure they had some inspectors on the ground checking and refusing to employ anyone who didn't use one.

Nah, they'd claim that those riders were self-employed and not part of Deliveroo's own delivery team. They'd then produce a bunch of paperwork with little check-boxes that the riders had declared themselves to be fully compliant with all legal requirements and then Deliveroo would lose the contact information and state that they don't use those riders anymore and that they're nothing to do with them.

The simplest and easiest solution is for police to rock up to a known hang-out for riders and then seize all the non-compliant vehicles along with whoever is riding them. That way, they have the culprit and the evidence in one easy visit and they can probably buy their dinner at the same time too.

then Deliveroo would lose the contact information and state that they don't use those riders anymore and that they're nothing to do with them

They have learned these dodges from the police, who make up laws and rules and blame inaction on the CPS, and claim that offences have to be witnessed by police officers, and claim that the NFA decision was made by someone 'who didn't sign the log' so they can't do anything, or that they have to have confirmatory video from the offending vehicle but there isn't any etc. etc. Lying police are one of our greatest problems

But won't lots of others just buy the ebikes at the police auction and then Deliveroo will hire them - sorry, accept them as independent contractors?

(Yes - you'd assume the police would just crush them but ...)

That horse may be well and truly volted by now but ultimately these firms are deriving benefit.  Possibly like trying to regulate the wild west but perhaps worth another round?  Wasn't there some minor victory a while back trying to nail some gig economy firms for saying their drivers / workers were not employees so therefore they were free to both get them to work for zero additional benefits AND also avoid responsibility for stuff they did while working?