Cycling industry alarm at government eBike regs consultation

In an announcement that appears to have blindsided the industry, the UK government has mooted the potential for significant changes for eBike regs and legislation.

The burgeoning eBike sector – a lynchpin for many European cycle markets and a significant and growing concern for the UK market – has been given a curve ball in the shape of a regulation shake up.

The government has proposed two key changes:

To amend the legal definition of EAPCS aka eBikes, so that the maximum continuous power output of the electric motor is doubled to 500 watts instead of 250 watts.

The second proposal is to all ‘twist and go’ EAPCS to have throttle assistance up to 15.5mph (25km/h) without the need for type approval.

Views on the proposed changes are now being welcomed – as are any views on potential benefits or risks the changes may have.

Should the changes go ahead, the eBike sector will be significantly broader than it currently is, blurring the lines between vehicle types that have made many in the cycling industry uncomfortable and concerned. Currently we’ve seen few views in support of these changes.

Cycling UK’s director of external affairs, Sarah McMonagle said: “These proposals present a huge safety risk to pedestrians and others who cycle. The dramatically increased power would mean faster acceleration and much heavier bikes, which we’re really concerned about.

“E-cycles with no pedal requirement would also reduce the health benefits of e-cycling – in essence, they would blur the line between e-bikes and electric motorbikes.

“The Government has stated that the proposed changes would make e-cycles more attractive, yet the most commonly cited reason for people not cycling is that they don’t feel safe. E-cycles are also prohibitively expensive for many people. We fully agree with the Government’s goal to get more people to enjoy the benefits of e-cycles, but believe the way to do that effectively is to invest in high quality infrastructure and provide financial assistance for those who need it.”

Industry representing body the Bicycle Association also raised serious concerns about changing “well established rules about legal eBikes in the UK”. The BA noted the risk of moped-like requirement: “The proposed changes… to allow motor operation without pedalling put at risk the pedal cycle status of eBikes,… [they] would be more like mopeds in character or performance, so in time, if not immediately, it will in our view prove impossible to resist calls for moped-like requirements such as mandatory insurance, registration and helmets. This will make the whole category significantly less attractive for users.”

The BA also listed public health concerns – making pedal assist a less attractive proposition to much of the public and therefore having a negative impact on exercise levels. It also noted fire risk and maybe even the legitimisation of tampering with existing eBikes to boost their power to the new specification, with potential serious safety consequences.

Battery safety was a theme also picked up by Electrical Safety First. A spokesperson commented: “Substandard eBike batteries are already causing devastating fires across the country and it is concerning that the Government is consulting on permitting an increase in their power without first addressing the critical safety concerns we have raised.

“We believe the priority should be to ensure the current batteries and accessories for these devices are safe. At present, a fully charged e bike battery can release a similar amount of stored energy to six hand grenades if the device fails. We need tighter regulation to ensure e-bikes and their batteries are safe before they come onto the market.

“We will of course review the proposals within the consultation issued today and provide a response, but we urge the Government to prioritise adopting our forthcoming Bill in Parliament to introduce third party certification for e-bikes, e-scooters and their batteries, to prevent further loss of life.”

The cycle industry wasn’t really looking for any new curve balls in 2024, it seems fair to point out, and this largely unforeseen one appears to have provided an extra reason

The BA rounded out its comment questioning whether there really is a pressing need for change to the regulations.

Other sources recently speaking to CIN off the record have questioned where this proposal has originated from.