E-Bike v E-Scooter

[Gary]

hahaha... Fuck knows why the "£" is there

 

[Beekeeper]

hahaha... Fuck knows why the "£" is there

Would gladly pay £1 for further instalments of this banter

 

[Gary]

Check you!

Honey money bags

 

[Zimmerframe]

£25 wind resistance? New unit of measurement for me.

I believe this is A Scottish way of measuring wind force ? How fast is the wind required to blow £25 out of a Scotts man's clenched hand ? - Approximately 80mph winds ..

£50 - 160mph winds .. and so on ..

 

[GrahamPaul]

I believe this is A Scottish way of measuring wind force ? How fast is the wind required to blow £25 out of a Scotts man's clenched hand ? - Approximately 80mph winds ..

£50 - 160mph winds .. and so on ..

INCOMMING!!!!! ????

 

[GrahamPaul]

I believe this is A Scottish way of measuring wind force ? How fast is the wind required to blow £25 out of a Scotts man's clenched hand ? - Approximately 80mph winds ..

£50 - 160mph winds .. and so on ..

Before realised that @Gary hadn't seen his typo, I was going to lecture him all about wind resistance being proportional to the square of velocity. I think you have got your financial computations based on fiscal resistance entirely wrong. The wind resistance will increase by velocity to the power of two. The grip resistance will also increase exponentially, probably also to the power of two.

Thus for 80mph to remove £25, a wind speed increase of 2^4 will be required to remove £50. That's 16 times 80mph = 1280mph.

[Edited because I got my sums wrong! ]

 

[KennyB]

Not a sound measurement system. Nothing over £10 gets out of my pocket.

 

[KeithR]

(I know it's an old thread, but it it's a perfect lead-in to this, so...)

that in turn being part of the regulations that enable E mtbs to be classified as bicycles and not motor vehicles.

Yes, applying the cut-off allows "pedelec" manufacturers to avoid the need to seek type-approval, but for a long time I've been looking for - and failing to find - the specific statute which obliges them to take steps to enforce the cut-off beyond the point of sale.

I'm really not convinced there's a legal need for bike companies to build in "tamper detection": as long the bike is sold in compliance with EN 15194/The Machinery Directive etc. I can't find anything binding on the companies to then - effectively - police the riders after the point of sale.

Yes, a derestricted ebike would still be "illegal" if used where it's not allowed, but I'm not finding the legal requirement for manufacturers to try and prevent riders from doing what they want to their bikes. Breaking the law is a matter of personal choice, as long as the individual understands and is prepared to accept the consequences, and I don't understand how the responsibility to prevent (or at least strongly dissuade) riders from doing so has fallen on the bike and motor makers.

Indeed, they don't know where a rider might be using his bike, so a derestricted bike could be perfectly legal.

So - any help here? Can anyone point me at the specific legislation which binds on the makers to build in tamper detection? Especially where it also results in the bike deliberately being disabled, which I strongly suspect is a denial of consumers' "Human Right" to enjoy their property.

A government can do that under some circumstances: Bosch and Shimano? Not so much...

 

[Mikerb]

(I know it's an old thread, but it it's a perfect lead-in to this, so...)

Yes, applying the cut-off allows "pedelec" manufacturers to avoid the need to seek type-approval, but for a long time I've been looking for - and failing to find - the specific statute which obliges them to take steps to enforce the cut-off beyond the point of sale.

I'm really not convinced there's a legal need for bike companies to build in "tamper detection": as long the bike is sold in compliance with EN 15194/The Machinery Directive etc. I can't find anything binding on the companies to then - effectively - police the riders after the point of sale.

Yes, a derestricted ebike would still be "illegal" if used where it's not allowed, but I'm not finding the legal requirement for manufacturers to try and prevent riders from doing what they want to their bikes. Breaking the law is a matter of personal choice, as long as the individual understands and is prepared to accept the consequences, and I don't understand how the responsibility to prevent (or at least strongly dissuade) riders from doing so has fallen on the bike and motor makers.

Indeed, they don't know where a rider might be using his bike, so a derestricted bike could be perfectly legal.

So - any help here? Can anyone point me at the specific legislation which binds on the makers to build in tamper detection? Especially where it also results in the bike deliberately being disabled, which I strongly suspect is a denial of consumers' "Human Right" to enjoy their property.

A government can do that under some circumstances: Bosch and Shimano? Not so much...

The revision of the pedelec standard EN15194:2017 states: ‘Predictable manipulations must be prevented or compensated by suitable countermeasures’. This standard becomes valid in May 2019

 

[Mikerb]

In the UK the 1 year trial of e scooters and the fact we will no longer be tied to EU regulations beyond Jan 2021 may well raise further debate on the use of e bikes.