"Cyclists think they can do whatever they want": Viral video shows moment driver uses bike lane to queue-jump gridlocked traffic; Wout van Aert's "calculated risk" for classics; DJ Dom Whiting announces first cycling event of 2024 + more on the live blog

On balance I'm for fixing things to make it better for users of existing legal EAPCs. Those have genuine benefits for lots of individuals. Even if "but not everyone needs them" and (if we ever fix the UK for cycling, to Scandinavian levels if not NL) I can see us drifting towards these being the majority form of "cycle". They're similar enough to non-powered cycles in performance - with caveats about the old and young (IIRC a small increase in danger observed in a VeligheidNL study).

I'm much more dubious about widening definitions of "legal eBikes". Especially in the UK where the non-business *users* are hardly calling for it.

Even though the horse has bolted somewhat eg. we're now going to be chasing after what is already being sold. Plus in theory this might allow us to do some "harm minimization" around deliveries eg. fewer vans.

wtjs wrote:

I generally confine myself to 1 'e-biking is not the same as cycling' comment per iteration of these fruitless 'you can get a lot of exercise on an e-bike' topics, but.... You can, but in practice you don't

I'll confine myself to one response to you as you pretty much must know by now what it is: on Thursday I rode the regular 26 km evening commute in one hour four minutes (nothing earth shattering I know, London commute with lots of traffic lights and junctions) on my e-road bike. The battery usage demonstrated that the motor was engaged for less than 7 km of that, i.e. the rest of the time I was riding above the 25 km/h cut off. So I rode 19 km on an unpowered bike, which is good exercise. All the best.

I don't think it's about destroying cycling exactly - though there are a few nutters in the political arena.   It's just another opportunity for "more" and "we're doing something" without the government having to invest major sums or face public uproar.  (Again - haven't checked but almost certainly driven by "market" or rather people keen to sell more expensive versions of stuff we already have, for more profit margin).

As far as I'm aware none of the major parties thinks about cycling any more often than most of the population.  It's basically irrelevant to them.  They don't really understand it now, and they've almost no idea of what it could be.  And certainly not what you'd need to achieve that [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]).  If they did I suspect they still wouldn't worry too much about negative consequences because most people in the UK don't cycle and those that do aren't highly regarded.

This won't achieve the overt "purpose" for the proposed change *.  It won't turn the UK into a nation of cyclists or create a level playing field for those with disabilities.

That's for the same reason as always - "where it's easy to drive, Brits drive".  That's the case everywhere; politicians made that choice long ago and are constantly reaffirming it (The Conservatives most notably recently, but others are available).  After that, where everyone is driving people just don't feel comfortable cycling.  And cycling will generally be less convenient - because you've all the inconveniences of driving e.g. long waits at traffic lights, road noise etc. AND you're slower and outside a motor vehicle.

* Per BBC - "In its consultation document, the government says the changes would make e-bikes a 'more attractive and viable travel option for more people', giving the example of people with mobility issues."

I can not Like your comment enough.
Finally someone else who recognises e-bikes are f*cking up cycling as we know it.

Everything that makes bikes so utterly wonderful is being ruined by e-bikes, step by step. Affordability, elegance, simplicity, longevity, ease of maintenance, dependability, sustainability, ease of use, durability, the health improving effect… it is all going down the drain, all for a little assist in pedalling. I hate it.
What makes it even more frustrating, is that most of the people buying in to those heavy, expensive 'bikes' only feel they need that e-assist because they have only ever ridden lousy bikes. If they had experienced the joy of a nice, light, fitting, well performing, sporty but comfortable bike, they wouldn't have cared for that.

Total rubbish.  EBikes have revolutionised urban transport. ecargo bikes have enabled people to carry stuff (and children), logistics companies use e-bikes and small business use e-bikes instead of vans. In Paris and London - where I live, mums and dads carry thier kids to school, the post office deliver parcels and letters, people commute to the office dressed in their suits and shoes. And older, less fit people use e-bikes. Go and visit German towns or come to Paris and see how the ebike has enabled many people to cycle 

Sredlums wrote:

I can not Like your comment enough.
Finally someone else who recognises e-bikes are f*cking up cycling as we know it.

Everything that makes bikes so utterly wonderful is being ruined by e-bikes, step by step. Affordability, elegance, simplicity, longevity, ease of maintenance, dependability, sustainability, ease of use, durability, the health improving effect… it is all going down the drain, all for a little assist in pedalling. I hate it.
What makes it even more frustrating, is that most of the people buying in to those heavy, expensive 'bikes' only feel they need that e-assist because they have only ever ridden lousy bikes. If they had experienced the joy of a nice, light, fitting, well performing, sporty but comfortable bike, they wouldn't have cared for that.

I disagree. I use an ebike for when I have to visit the office or go shopping, because it's often better/faster/easier than driving my van, is virtually maintenance free and can take 25kg in the panniers. I have a large number of "nice, light, fitting, well performing, sporty but comfortable bikes" which I ride for the joy of it, but for office or shops, the ebike is first choice.

My disabled neighbour really likes her e-bike. It allows her mobility, without the running costs of her adapted vehicle. My elder brother has arthritis and a Swytch conversion allows him to carry on riding. 

OldRidgeback wrote:

My disabled neighbour really likes her e-bike. It allows her mobility, without the running costs of her adapted vehicle. My elder brother has arthritis and a Swytch conversion allows him to carry on riding. 

Indeed, and a good thing that is too. All those arguments in the consultation about assisting the disabled seem to miss the fact that current EAPCs do exactly that. I hate it when the "won't someone please think of the disabled" card is played in the face of the disabled themselves, and as a distraction to whatever ulterior motives are actually at large.

Sredlums wrote:

What makes it even more frustrating, is that most of the people buying in to those heavy, expensive 'bikes' only feel they need that e-assist because they have only ever ridden lousy bikes. If they had experienced the joy of a nice, light, fitting, well performing, sporty but comfortable bike, they wouldn't have cared for that.

Absolute nonsense. I know the joy of riding superb race bikes, as I've owned them all my life and have three at the moment. I also have an ebike because I needed it to get over a very serious illness and the drugs I had to take for it, when I couldn't ride 5 km without making myself severely ill, the after effects of which I still suffer and which has meant that although I can still ride 100 miles on my road bikes when I want to it leaves me exhausted for days, so riding a 50 km commute every day without assistance was too much for me. I also use it for carrying heavy loads, taking shopping to elderly parents et cetera. It replaces numerous trips that otherwise I would be making using a car, with all the pollution and congestion contribution that would make, would that be preferable for you? If you hate that, I really don't care.

Superb race bikes, however superb they may be at riding fast, are not what I meant when I specifically said "a sporty but comfortable bike".

I actually happen to love race biukes and mountain bikes, but the whole perception that a really good bike automatically means a sports-type bike, is the very problem. Most people just have no experience with - or knowledge of their existence - a practical, fully featured, but still lightweight and comfortable(!) kind of bike.
They are used to crappy, heavy, ill-fitting, badly functioning city bikes, and feel a 'good' bike is automatically one where you sit hunched over, ride without mudguards and a kickstand and lights and so forth.

I guess I must be lucky where I live - plenty of ''normal'' bicycles still available and probably will be for a very, very long time. I don't feel frustrated by anyone buying an e-bike - why would I? It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

perce wrote:

I guess I must be lucky where I live - plenty of ''normal'' bicycles still available and probably will be for a very, very long time. I don't feel frustrated by anyone buying an e-bike - why would I? It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

Where I live there are plenty of normal bikes available.  There are five in our garage.  Plus an e-cargo bike.  And all but two of them (my 'retired' old bike and my wife's bike) they all get plenty of use of give plenty of joy to the riders (me and the kids).

It's all about enjoyment, whatever bike you choose to ride.

perce wrote:

I guess I must be lucky where I live - plenty of ''normal'' bicycles still available and probably will be for a very, very long time. I don't feel frustrated by anyone buying an e-bike - why would I? It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

But it will when you're sharing the cycle path with 500W (plus the usual wiggle room) twist'n-go motorbikes.

Sriracha wrote:

perce wrote:

I guess I must be lucky where I live - plenty of ''normal'' bicycles still available and probably will be for a very, very long time. I don't feel frustrated by anyone buying an e-bike - why would I? It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

But it will when you're sharing the cycle path with 500W (plus the usual wiggle room) twist'n-go motorbikes.

As the horse has well and truly bolted and young people are encouraged into criminal behaviour just so that they can get from A to B easily and cheaply, I think we should rate ebikes and escooters etc by weight rather than power. It's easier to check the weight of a device than its power and the mass is an important part of how dangerous vehicles can be. Maybe have a limit of 20kg for privately owned vehicles - that would then bring a lot of devices back into legality and then we can focus on the elephant in the traffic.

Sredlums wrote:

I can not Like your comment enough.
Finally someone else who recognises e-bikes are f*cking up cycling as we know it.

Hmm... do you mean "lots of humans" plus "quest for convenience" plus "what succeeds is what sells" is changing a situation you have nostalgia for?

Sredlums wrote:

Everything that makes bikes so utterly wonderful is being ruined by e-bikes, step by step. Affordability, elegance, simplicity, longevity, ease of maintenance, dependability, sustainability, ease of use, durability, the health improving effect… it is all going down the drain, all for a little assist in pedalling. I hate it.

Some of those are fair, some are subjective and the last I'd disagree with.  There seems to be evidence that (compared to alternatives e.g. driving, not going out so much) they contribute to health.  (Certainly if fewer journeys are driven that's a health win for everyone!)

I'm no a fan of combining everything mechanical with motor power - and generally now a computer and "connectivity".  Or of "planned obselescence" (see previous sentence - adding an app is great for that!).  But I'm irrelevant - the current way is "technology at the speed of fast fashion" with all the overuse and waste that goes with that.

In fact - people "misusing" stuff / overusing resources / pursuing "convenience" they don't need ("luxury") has been a thing since humans.  It's just increasingly possible for vastly greater numbers of us now.

The positives of eBikes are a mixed picture.  I hope ebikes / micro-vehicles could help get us away from more problematic vehicles (more dangerous / noisy / less space efficient etc).  However most people want something "like a car / van" because that is known, and has been "required" for a few generations.

eBikes can also be great as an enabler for e.g. people with disabilities / older people.  But that will probably be balanced by the more able pushing their way to the front of the queue, same usual.

Sredlums wrote:

What makes it even more frustrating, is that most of the people buying in to those heavy, expensive 'bikes' only feel they need that e-assist because they have only ever ridden lousy bikes. If they had experienced the joy of a nice, light, fitting, well performing, sporty but comfortable bike, they wouldn't have cared for that.

This is the most questionable part.  I know people who have ridden better bikes than I've owned but now being older / less well are pleased to have a way of "keeping up" / "still getting out" via ebikes.

Also I don't think many people are buying ebikes because of bad experiences with bikes.  Those people (delivery riders or previous "non-cyclists") are likely just interested in the mobility and convenience and want something "with a motor" - which isn't a car or actual motorbike.

I think most people are mostly interested in availability and reliability of transport, journey time, cost, ability to transport items / people I need, directness... Plus avoiding other inconveniences e.g. parking / vehicle storage.

Wow, that's alot of reactions on my comment.

I never denied e-bikes have their good sides. They do, and if they speak to you, by all means, use those benefits to your advantage.

What almost all of you people missed however, is that I said "e-bikes are f*cking up cycling as we know it."
And that 'as we know it' part is actually the main point of what I said in my original comment.

If the elderly or other people who can use some assistence for whatever reason, and e-bikes provide that: cool.
If people leave their car at home more often: great.
Etc., etc.

My gripe against e-bikes is that, while doing all the above things, they are also changing 'traditional cycling'. Over here in The Netherlands, what is considdered a 'normal bike' has already changed. Even kids nowadays expect an e-bike when they get a new bike. So that means parents are facing huge extra costs. It also means a lot of extra hassle (think keeping them charged, store them safe and dry, and near electricity, paying for insurence etc.), and bikes are obsolete way faster, adding to the cost further.
Normal bikes are now an afterthought. In bike shops they are relegated to a small corner in the back of the shop. Developements will slow, and eventually stop. Parts will get scarce.
And I haven't even touched other problems, like an increasing amount of accidents, bike lanes getting less pleasant with people flashing by at high speeds (without being experienced at riding at those speeds).
E-bikes have their upsides, sure, but they also change the very things that made cycling so great to begin with, and that truly saddens me.

Ah - I forgot where you stay.  Well in NL you've a right to complain - you've got to the point that bikes are just like cars.  As in - everyone's riding one and all complaining about the traffic or that they can't find a parking spot.

In the UK you'd be hard-pressed to screw up cycling "as we know it" (not that it stops a few trying - but by and large it's just neglect / indifference). So I guess here it seems like ebikes are pretty low on the list of things to worry about.

However - once there is mass cycling then ... yeah, that's a really attractive mass market!  Those who brought us the automobile* are no doubt capable of bringing some other aspirational convenience which people will buy en mass - and we'll all find out the unwanted side effects of mass use later in time.

Also unlike cars (which tend to suppress other modes) it seems mass cycling has a certain fragility **.

David Hembrow raises an interesting point about this in NL - the effect on the second-hand market (mid-way through the article).

* Effortless transport!  Less hassle than a horse!  Solves all your transport needs!  Your own personal carriage!  All the film stars have one!  Freedom!  (With an undercurrent of sex, for the younger...)

** Perhaps bikes are a bit too "egalitarian" / decentralised?  Too cheap and simple?  People will always seek "less effort" - especially if used to cars.  And humans are always looking for ways of displaying their status to others - if not a nicer car then what about an eBike?  Authorities are complacent - because it's so efficient some cycling will usually happen "by itself" and work around / with other modes.  This is the case even in the UK and the US where we really went all-in on road transport after others started to try to change direction.

I think you will have a point if they do go through with the proposals in the consultation. It is nonsense, at the stroke of the legislative pen, to extend the definition of "bicycle" to include non-pedalling motorised transport well beyond the normal human performance envelope, and thereby claim to have increased "cycling", or indeed "active travel", and its concomitant benefits.

All the virtues claimed for current EAPCs rest on their near-equivalence to ordinary bicycles; size, weight, performance, speed, exercise and so on. The difference is limited to 250W, which puts athletic performance within reach of the unathletic, without stretching the other parameters too far.

You can not have something which is fundamentally different and pretend it is basically the same - no, not even if you get there by degrees. 500W throttle power is in no way alike with 250W pedal assistance, not even if you call it by the same name.

Sriracha wrote:

...You can not have something which is fundamentally different and pretend it is basically the same...

I wasn't too concerned by this but now I'm woke and you've made me worried.

This is *exactly* what our political masters like to do. Changing words to "fix" things is lower cost and effort. And the current lot - I'm thinking "breaking laws ... in specific and limited ways" plus legally defining other countries as safe places.

For all the harrumph about broadening definitions of things they don't favour, if it suits their favoured groups / businesses to define a dog as a cat? Fetch your bone Tibbles, let's go for a walk...

Sredlums wrote:

Everything that makes bikes so utterly wonderful is being ruined by e-bikes, step by step. Affordability, elegance, simplicity, longevity, ease of maintenance, dependability, sustainability, ease of use, durability, the health improving effect… it is all going down the drain, all for a little assist in pedalling. I hate it.

Prejudiced bullshit.

As others have pointed out, the use of e-bikes has allowed people to keep cycling or provided an opportunity for others to replace shorter car journeys with a power-assisted pedalling. The health benefits of these choices should be obvious.

The ridiculous price tags on high end bikes has nothing to do with the rise of e-biking. Ditto for electronic groupsets and tubeless tyres. Nobody spends more than the race-replica blokes with their S-Works bikes and gear, the heat-moulded shoes, or the Assos or Maap layers for all weathers and the trips to the Balearics or Gran Canaria.

Post-Brexit and post-Covid the cost of everything has gone up, food in particular, yet people don't complain about that (pretty essential, surely) anywhere near as much as when the price of petrol increases by 5p/litre. Whining losers.

If you want a mechanical bikes then you are truly spoilt for choice. Derailleurs from 8 to 12 and sometimes 13, road, all-road, gravel race, gravel bikepacking, utility, touring, folding, made from alu, steel, high-end steel, titanium, carbon, super-light carbon...

e-bikes, and even illegal e-bikes are simply products. Nobody claims that cars are 'cheating' or spoiling it for other people (though in fact they are, in various very significant ways as shown time and time again on this site; and they make people lazy). Even 'cheap' cars are damned expensive to run and maintain. Is using a trolley at the supermarket cheating?

And you need to use a typewriter for future comments or submit a handwritten piece by post instead of CHEATING with a frigging computer and the internet. And don't EVER let me catch you using copy & paste instead of writing it all properly, like a grown-up.

My rohloff goes to 14...

Wow. What were you on when you wrote that?

You put words in my mouth and then blame me for those words. Multiple paragraphs about 'cheating', really? Point me to where I said anything about cheating. I'll wait.

Another thing, please explain to me what TF is 'prejudiced' about wanting bikes to remain affordable, self-maintainable and durable?

And what's with all the rambling about 'ridiculous price tags on high end bikes'? I still ride the mountain bike I bought in 1994, FFS.

Re-read my comments, then re-read your own comment, and then ask yourself who should behave like a grown-up.

Sredlums wrote:

Wow. What were you on when you wrote that?

An old office chair. Why?

I don't need to re-read your comments and have no intention of changing my response.

The existence and growing popularity of e-bikes is unrelated to an understandable desire for "bikes to remain affordable, self-maintainable and durable". Blaming e-bikes for whatever you think is happening is down to prejudice, not the current state of bicycle retail.

Those quoted qualities are important to me too, it's partly why I ride secondhand aluminium bikes with 9 speed Sora and cheap OE wheels all year round (though the wheels on the Trek are about to be upgraded to some £300 handbuilt ones, a birthday gift).

You rant on and on about how all kind of things are not 'cheating', all to make your point that riding an e-bike is not cheating, all your anger directed at me, while I never said anything about cheating.
I point out that fact, and your reaction is 'I HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING MY RESPONSE!!1!'.

That says a lot about you, and none of it is good.

By the way, the existence and growing popularity of e-bikes has already changed what people consider as 'a normal bicycle'.
If a parent now wants to buy his growing kid a new bike, and suggests a traditional bike, the kid will say 'What!? Everybody has an e-bike, I'm not gonna ride this bike!". That means e-bikes have made bicycles more expensive.
That has nothing to do with prejudice.