"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

I don't see much value to their point about acceleration.  How many people would have their bike set to 100% motor power to accelerate from a standing start, knowing the motor is going to cut out at 15.5mph anyway?  Even the highly dodgy e-bikes that I see many food delivery cyclists using, where no pedalling is required don't seem to offer motorbike like acceleration.

Simon Cowell?

youngoldbloke wrote:

It seems to be forgotten by many that the ebike assistance  cut off speed on a currently legal ebike can only be attained  by pedalling, and that it isn't a maximum bike speed anyway - that's up to your leg strength. In my opinion The cut off speed should be set at an appropriate level for the bike type, a Pinarello or Orbea e-road bike 20mph maybe, an e-delivery bike 15mph. 

I strongly disagree with this. A 15.5mph cut off for all bikes makes things easy to understand and regulate. Having variable cutoff speeds means nobody actually knowing what the cut off speed for a specific bike and rider should be. 

What about if I had an electric land speed fully faired recumbent? would that be limited to 60mph as that's a reasonable speed to attain on such a machine?

Oldfatgit wrote:

Why retain the 15mph limit, but increase the power? Unless it's to assist some of the more heavier bikes, such as the 4 wheelers being used by FedEx et al?

I haven't done any digging but I suspect you have it.  Bet it's simply a case of "follow the lobby" (money) and it'll be a delivery firm

Or possibly some of the current (ICE motorbike) sellers looking to get a higher price product out.  Several of these already have been jockeying for more access / less regulation of things closer to the full-on electric motorbike.  I'm sure they'd take a power upgrade as a way to ease towards something like lower-regulation speed-pedelecs / "super off-road" bikes.

I'm slightly concerned about the delivery aspect (beyond the dire food delivery firms).  Mixed feelings - less vans would be great, but I'm concerned about capacity on what is our very limited cycle infra.  It's the usual - private commercial users making free with public space issue.  There may currently be more regulation on-road...

But why can't we drive vans down the cycle paths?

Er, clue's in the name, bro.

Oh, sweet - let's change the name!

Those rules are irrelevant given that they are only enforced for short periods in limited areas, with a PR stunt on social media coverage the only intention.

Even as a cyclist, I find it bloody mayhem trying to walk around cities and large towns due to food deliveries whizzing past in all directions and very fast speeds and with no regard for anything or anyone except to get the job done.

15.5moph is too quick for an escooter imo. 8mph or 12mph makes more sense, given wheel size wtc.

Tom_77 wrote:

It would probably make sense to align eBike and E-scooter rules.

"Probably" doing some heavy lifting there. But if you really think so, why is it not a reason to lower e-scooters to the same limits as current e-bikes (EAPCs)?

Because you don't need a licence for a bicycle?

Benthic wrote:

If 1,500 kg of car has no legal requirement for an engine power assistance limiter, why does 20 kg of bicycle need one?

Cars definitely should have power limits and be geographically speed limited too. It would be easy and cheap to implement as the technology is already present in almost all new cars but it would stop people pointlessly consuming as there would be no reason to buy a new bigger, more powerful, more pointless car and under capitalism there is nothing worse than an end to pointless consumption so it won't even be proposed, nevermind enacted. 

Agree.

I think the way you view e-bikes makes a difference to opinions on this. If you see them as a way of making cycling a bit easier, then a 250W & 15.5mph is probably adequate. But if you are considering an e-bike as a replacement for a car, then a 20mph & 500W limit makes it a far more attractive prospect.

I agonised over getting an e-bike when I was cycle commuting regularly. But I was relatively fit then and could maintain an average speed in excess of the 15.5mph cut off, unless going uphill. I determined the help I would get uphill was not worth it for the penalty on the flat. If the limit was 20mph, it would have been a no-brainer and I would have bought one immediately.

My commute was rural national speed limit roads, with lots of motorised traffic, no cycling infrastructure and only encountering the odd other cyclist.

I also took kids to school, on surburban streets, on a cargo bike for several years. Dodgy overtakes were an issue on one particular stretch of road. Being able to hit 20mph, paired with a 20mph limit, would have felt a lot safer. 

Hmm... as usual "what are the others doing?"  I suspect that one reason many countries where far more people cycle have stuck with 15.5 is that it's a good balance.  I'm not convinced the UK needs to be "innovative" here (yet again...).

On the one hand quite a few people feel 20mph ebikes would "even things out" between bikes and cars, given 20mph roads.  However outside of Wales and specific urban areas elsewhere we often have 30, not 20.  Particularly on the distributor roads that cyclists need to be on* (the ones that actually go somewhere).

Plus in the UK we're often still talking 20mph "roads" not "streets" **.  And we know that most drivers are going over 20mph.

So... the extra speed might be attractive to a minority of current cyclists, maybe?

I doubt it will encourage more people to cycle, because people just don't like mixing it with volumes of motor traffic***.

It will also likely mean that more cyclists are going faster - including those who are maybe less physically robust (e.g. older people who are more likely to be injured in any crash).

* Cyclists need to be on these roads (which are commonly equipped with separate cycle paths elsewhere) because we currently build infra where it's easy / doesn't cause uproar from the motorists, not where it's most needed!

** In that these are used by rather large volumes of motor traffic - because in the UK they may have functions of "route" as well as "place".  In the UK even what are logically end-destination streets (e.g. in a residential estate) tend to be permeable at both ends of a street (so can be used to "rat-run" / re-route).

*** Lots of other reasons for this of course.

ride2smile wrote:

Looking at it from the perspective of who would benefit most I'd say delivery type organisations. someone who made a big donation to the Conservative Party or in whose company an MP has shares.

FTFY.

The Telegraph readership will never let this one through .... unless they are in it for the long game, hoping the inevitable problems will bring down cycling, LTNs, active travel, the whole damn eco-anything.

ride2smile wrote:

Online shopping has driven an increase in delivery drivers,...

logically then it has driven a decrease in people driving to the shops (ask any traditional shop keeper). Given that one dedicated delivery van is way more efficient than multiple individual car journeys, the net effect must be less traffic on the roads, fewer cars parked everywhere.

Sriracha wrote:

logically then it has driven a decrease in people driving to the shops (ask any traditional shop keeper). Given that one dedicated delivery van is way more efficient than multiple individual car journeys, the net effect must be less traffic on the roads, fewer cars parked everywhere.

Hmm... it doesn't seem like fewer cars parked everywhere - (but Covid / remote working may well have caused some change though).

I've heard this a few times but I can't recall seeing numbers. I'm sure growth of online has changed things but people may also be ordering *more stuff* from more different places as well as "window shopping" ( again ask store owners about that...) So not sure this has been an unqualified win (also check the PACTS analysis for which vehicle type kills the most by distance travelled - perhaps unsurprisingly it's vans).

If we could get much smaller vehicle "last mile delivery" going with fewer vans that might be a benefit. As others have suggested perhaps lobbying for *that* is also behind this proposal?

I guess I'm naive to think of healthy posties and delivery bikers on EAPCs - it'll be more like Amazon kilowatt-power autonomous drones filling the "cycle" paths... (But maybe still a small safety improvement over delivery drivers? And they don't need sick pay or have unions!)

The cynic in me thinks this is designed to intentionally further divide the public on e-bike usage. I can see absolutely no benefit and many, many drawbacks. What are they trying to achieve? It can't be to encourage more people on to e-bikes given there are hundreds of other things that can be done before this that would actually work. No one is not buying an ebike because it can't accelerate away from lights quick enough or that it's too light. 

The only benefit I can see is for people with heavier cargo bikes (delivery compansies etc) but actually enforcing the 15.5mph limit when you've could legally fit such motors to regular bikes