Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Positive discussion on ebikes and pedal assist bicycles

Reference material on ebikes

Postby alan101 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:55 am

Alan Parker has written papers on the advantages of ebikes for a decade and a half, and presented many of these at transport conferences. His website is <http://alanparker-pest.org/>.

If you want to reference something he's written, try accessing the 'Recent publications' link in the top right corner of his web page. He's quite fastidious about referencing his sources. Alan is a senior ebiker, who has had significant heart issues in the past couple of years and ongoing osteo-arthritis, so please cut him some slack when he copies in some of his writing here. Serious inquiry will be rewarded by scratching the surface.

The subjects covered in his letters, articles and submissions include:
· Bicycle planning and ecologically sustainable transport in Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands.
· Making walking and cycling safer: lessons for Australia from the Netherlands experience.
· Making walking and cycling safer: by reducing urban speed limits and banning bull bars in urban areas.
· Integration of bicycles and the public transport system including the need for theft and vandal proof bicycle parking at rail stations and modal interchanges.
· Evolution of the Chinese and Japanese electric power assisted bicycle industry.
· Electric bicycles reduce oil dependence and pollution, are potential economic users of solar electricity, and enhance the mobility of elderly and partially disabled.
· Unsustainable transport trends in Census data for the journey to work from 1976 to 2006 in Australia and New Zealand.
· Health benefits of bicycle and electric bicycle riding.
· The end of suburbia: what happens when the cheap oil is gone and what are the public health implications.
· Uncontrolled oil dependence is a threat to national security that could destroy the economy and increase CO2 emissions.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

by BNA » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:16 pm

BNA
 

Re: Reference material on ebikes

Postby Joeblake » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:16 pm

alan101 wrote:Serious inquiry will be rewarded by scratching the surface.




If you've got a point to make, please do your own research, and don't expect other people to do it for you. If you quote something, it's up to YOU to provide the document, otherwise you'll just be ignored.

This thread, after all, is on the topic of law, and in law any evidence that is provided has to be tested before it's accepted. Just saying that somebody else said something is NOT evidence. For all the rest of us know you could be making everything up, and if you're challenged you can just back out saying, "Oh, no, that's what such and such a person said, I didn't say it."


Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12821
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Citation

Postby alan101 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:03 pm

My work is referenced.

I agree that evidence is useful. I'd like to see some indicating that any Victorian ebike manufacturer/retailer or ebiker was consulted in the course of NSW devising their proposed national standard on ebikes. I know it doesn't exist, so I'm not wasting my time looking.

Don't forget, there's also 'The vibe of the thing' (Aust film 'The Castle', 1997).
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Citation

Postby Joeblake » Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:03 pm

alan101 wrote:.

I agree that evidence is useful ... I know it doesn't exist, so I'm not wasting my time looking.

Don't forget, there's also 'The vibe of the thing' (Aust film 'The Castle', 1997).


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't forget, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (Carl Sagan, Astrophysicist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12821
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Kids and ebike issue

Postby alan101 » Mon Aug 29, 2011 2:10 pm

Someone expressed concern that kids would get ebikes and terrorise cyclists on the shared paths. My initial reaction was that few kids have a spare $2k to buy an ebike, and as ebikes already exist - I've never seen a kid on one that I can recall in 3y of ebiking. I do see kids on petrol motorcycles in inappropriate places, two in my local park last week and occasionally on my Fed Trail bike path (mainly manifest as spewed up dirt and rocks from fishtailing on marrgin), and they can do 80kmh easy peasy. I did hear of 2 lads on ebikes going 'fast' up around Mooney Ponds on a path, and at the time I commented that infrastructure could use improving to eliminate blind corners. Current regulations class the 200w ebike as a bicycle, so the person complaining would have had to seek banning all bicycles from that path to fix the situation. It shows how various demographics have different bike infrastructure needs, and sometimes we can't expect one recreational path to cover all needs.

Anyway, the topic of kids came up in the Alternative Transport Assn (ATA) ebike paper (cited in thread above). I don't like excluding anyone from ebiking (it's pretty innocuous), but if it meant ebikes could continue to have 32kmh before the motor fades to nil input (as at present with my ebike) instead of EU pedalec 23-25kmh cutout to motor, it could be a useful approach. I can imagine a kid out in the country somewhere, and an ebike enabling a better commute to school than having to cycle unassisted say 10-20km or have Mum drive him/her everywhere/anytime. Someone pointed out that idiots don't have a monopoly on traveling by car; they use bicycles, motorcycles and cars.

ATA position (pdf p6): '4. That an age restriction is placed on the use. (Further discussion is required to determine and nominate a suitable age.) Consistent with the road rules for WA, the age of 16 is suggested as this is also the age a learner’s permit can be obtained and familiarity with the road rules can be demonstrated. This rule is suggested to ensure safe use of light electric vehicles as they will predominately be used for freighting or commuting on the road network'.

I had this item (#30) in my ebike submission: 'License <15y. This proposition from a teacher. Perhaps have a license for people under 15 to be on limited speed (ie 25 kmh) and users over 15 years have speed unlimited. I think that would make sense, as I can see the concern of kids not being able to make decisions quick enough to cope with greater speeds, but its crazy limiting adults as you can ride a road bike faster than that!'.

It would be possible to have an Australian ebike legislation that doesn't cut back on current ebike speed capabilities, but would encompass the EU 250w/25kmh ebikes which the bike retail sector seem enamored of. If pedalecs are as good as we're being told, they should have no problem selling on their merits. My EVS ebike shop say that some clients like the pedalec option, as it frees up the hands from using a throttle.

The ATA paper also mentioned posting speed limits on bike paths where required. I found their proposed 30kmh a bit slow, as I can ride my legal 200w ebike at 34kmh pedal-assisted and 38-40kmh with a decent tail wind or off a hill. However, where there's blind spots, untamed kids in a park or chronic damp patches in corners a speed limit would give a rider useful input. The reference in para 1 was to 2 kids ebiking at speed through a gaggle of small children on bikes spread across the path going slow. It would be a mistake to mandate speed limiting ebikes down to this level (lowest common denominator), as it would render them fairly useless for the on-road commuter. Even with a 23kmh cutoff to motor, it would still be too fast in this circumstance. The proposed legislation (NSW RTA) at no time allows that ebike riders have a brain and can adapt their pace to prevailing circumstances. It seeks to physically impede ebikes to the point where many will simply continue getting about by car or public transport. If kids have to be sacrificed for the greater ebike good, it's an approach with some merit.

On the absence of evidence. Recently, a doctoral thesis student/ebiker told me there's no evidence in the interntaional literature that eliminating compulsory helmet wearing had raised the bicycle participation rate anywhere. It's an issue around Melb's $5 mil bicycle share scheme (bixie) take up rate. On reflection, there are very few jurisdictions in the world that have mandatory helmets for cyclists at all. Probably fewer still that have removed such a statute. And then someone had to think to produce participation measures both before and after the legislative change, write up the difference and publish this. Anecdotally, a Danish architect spoke at Melb Town Hall this year about Copenhagen's bike scene, and said that if they had compulsory helmets they'd drop 50% of their cyclists. Niels Torslov (senior Copenhagen traffic engineer) also touched on this when he spoke at Melb Uni School of Architecture in 2010, citing results of focus group studies he'd managed when devising Copenhagen's bike strategy. So lack of evidence doesn't mean it's not possible in the future. Especially in the field of cycling, where govts are often not interested in funding scientific investigation for a 'minority' activity. It's nice to know that X km of new bike path raised the cycling participation rate, but in the end it's the X km of concrete path that I'm interested in.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

Bike-car relativity on open road as a safety measure

Postby alan101 » Mon Aug 29, 2011 5:29 pm

diggler wrote: Digler said, "Any arguments about keeping pace with the traffic are red herrings. You can buy a motorbike if you want to keep pace with the cars".


I can't recall ever seeing this 'relativity' alluded to, perhaps because cyclists aren't asked to justify their existence in the way that's asked of ebikers. I think Diggler is wrong, and matching surrounding traffic speed is useful, because:

The faster a bicycle moves on an 80-100kmh open country road, the longer a following driver will have to recognise that there's a cyclist ahead. This recognition period will increase with the use of fluoro gear, eg a reflective safety vest. The longer the recognition period, the more time a driver has to give a cyclist required space. An ebike traveling 30kmh may have 100% more driver recognition time than a cyclist doing 15kmh on an open road with no view obstruction. When the view is obstructed, eg car following large truck, this recognition period becomes critical. Being back-ended is perhaps the most singular cause of cyclist mortality (guestimate 35% of rider deaths).

Another interpretation of this in a metro environment, would be that the 30kmh ebiker traveling 10km is in the traffic stream for half the time of a 15kmh cyclist. One has had half the exposure to traffic as the other for a 10km trip.

Already mentioned, doing 30kmh in the slow lane (vs 15kmh) is less likely to see a following car turn left and cut you off, as they'll drive behind you and then make their turn. Cycling 35kmh on a car's left rear panel (going same direction as bike) will prevent an oncoming car turning right across your path (concept in VicRoads motorcyclist manual). I'm thinking about this in a dense inner urban commuter environment, where 50-60kmh may be optimistic for cars.

Anyway, that's 4 situations where the ebiker doing 30kmh is better off than someone ambling at 15kmh.


(late entry) David offered this critique:
'I'm not sure your math (100% more driver recognition time) is correct -- for the former case the car would gain at 85km/h on the bike, and at 70km/h for the latter. So it would take about 20% longer to get a given distance closer ("recognition distance") to the bike'.

(2nd late entry by Flecc of Pedalecs forum, UK) 'Your first point I haven't seen before and I think it's a fresh view. The others I have seen, and a comment about the number of vehicles passing slow bikes, especially up hills, is often made; the faster the bike, the fewer the passes'.
Last edited by alan101 on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Bike-car relativity on open road as a safety measure

Postby Comedian » Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:07 pm

alan101 wrote:
diggler wrote: Digler said, "Any arguments about keeping pace with the traffic are red herrings. You can buy a motorbike if you want to keep pace with the cars".


I can't recall ever seeing this 'relativity' alluded to, perhaps because cyclists aren't asked to justify their existence in the way that's asked of ebikers. I think Diggler is wrong, and matching surrounding traffic speed is useful, because:

The faster a bicycle moves on an 80-100kmh open country road, the longer a following driver will have to recognise that there's a cyclist ahead. This recognition period will increase with the use of fluoro gear, eg a reflective safety vest. The longer the recognition period, the more time a driver has to give a cyclist required space. An ebike traveling 30kmh may have 100% more driver recognition time than a cyclist doing 15kmh on an open road with no view obstruction. When the view is obstructed, eg car following large truck, this recognition period becomes critical. Being back-ended is perhaps the most singular cause of cyclist mortality (guestimate 35% of rider deaths).

Another interpretation of this in a metro environment, would be that the 30kmh ebiker traveling 10km is in the traffic stream for half the time of a 15kmh cyclist. One has had half the exposure to traffic as the other for a 10km trip.

Already mentioned, doing 30kmh in the slow lane (vs 15kmh) is less likely to see a following car turn left and cut you off, as they'll drive behind you and then make their turn. Cycling 35kmh on a car's left rear panel (going same direction as bike) will prevent an oncoming car turning right across your path (concept in VicRoads motorcyclist manual). I'm thinking about this in a dense inner urban commuter environment, where 50-60kmh may be optimistic for cars.

Anyway, that's 4 situations where the ebiker doing 30kmh is better off than someone ambling at 15kmh.


Go on mate... you know you want to. You don't even need a special licence for it unlike the poor 15 year olds you want to licence so you can ride your unrestricted electric motor bike on bike paths. You just have to pay a little bit of rego each year. Those suckers do 50kph. Think of how much safer you'll be. :)

Image
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill. :mrgreen:

Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day. :shock: :lol:

Image
User avatar
Comedian
 
Posts: 4412
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Bike-car relativity on open road as a safety measure

Postby Joeblake » Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:17 pm

Comedian wrote: You just have to pay a little bit of rego each year. Those suckers do 50kph. Think of how much safer you'll be. :)

Image



Yeah,

And just think you much righteous arrogance you can wield - - "Unlike you piddly little 250 watt slowpokes, I pay my registration, I'm entitled to ride like a git at high speed and think I own the road - or the cycle path."

:lol: :lol:

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12821
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby cachexian » Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:50 pm

Sadly my Ebike is no longer... :cry:

Doored on Thursday night: crash -> flip -> ouch -> hospital

My injuries will heal (thankfully) but the bike is kaput.

Cachexian.
Scott Sub 40 with 200W, 36v Ezee geared front hub motor
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
cachexian
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby Joeblake » Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:33 pm

Ouch!!! :shock: :shock: :( :(

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12821
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Commiserations

Postby alan101 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:01 pm

Cachexian - commiserations. Your bike's a complete write-off, can't replace the forks, salvage the motor/controller/battery? Any chance the driver's insurance will pull through for you?

I'm big on wearing a fluoro safety vest to get seen, but gaining a 180 deg rear vision advantage is a stretch if the driver isn't atentive. Glad you can still hobble to the computer, so take heart - it could've been worse. My motorcycle back-ended a car on a blind bend out of a roundabout 2y ago, and I was briefly unconscious on the ground with ambulance attending. I continued to ride, but it may have taken a year to regain most of my confidence. Bicycle Victoria had something on the amount of doorings in Melbourne, but I couldn't find it just now via their e-newsletters. I vaguely recall it might have been 35-45 cyclists/yr report this in Victoria, so you're not alone. Best wishes for a speedy recovery of yourself and your transport medium. If only you could've taken the door home as a souvenir.
Last edited by alan101 on Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

50 kmh e-scooter - nah

Postby alan101 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:17 pm

Comedian, I'd be looking to this webpage to choose a quick electric powered two-wheeler if I were to abandon my trusty Jamis ebike for mopower:
http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/chargin ... eview.html

Then there's the option to get your solar panels in sync with the bike's battery voltage, and abandon the morally reprehensible oil industry. We all know about the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the pollution from which is still nobbling 1200km of Alaskan coastline. Whole towns have long since lost their economic base with fishery collapse. Apparently, there have been 500 oil spills of similar or greater magnitude globally in the 22 years since that 1989 catastrophe. Really, it's long-term poisoning of the planet. Burning fossil fuels releases mercury, and Japanese dolphin meat is actually toxic enough to act as a neuro-toxin on the human nervous system. Sorry, no referencing as this is TV doco content spotting.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby cachexian » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:19 am

Well, I was wearing a fluoro red jersey and have enough lights on my bike that it looks like the Sydney Harbour Bridge on New Year's Eve. It took the paramedic several minutes to work out how to turn them all off. The door-opener guy didn't look, or at least he didn't look carefully enough.
Scott Sub 40 with 200W, 36v Ezee geared front hub motor
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
cachexian
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby cachexian » Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:21 am

On another note, I hit that door going at 25kph or thereabouts. That seemed pretty fast when running to a stationary and reasonably sharp object.

Perhaps we should mandate a top speed of 5kph for all bicycles to allow for the lowest common denominator of door-openers?
:mrgreen: :D :D

Sure the commuting times would be hopeless but at least the door-openers wouldn't have to lose their no-claim bonus on their car insurance. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Scott Sub 40 with 200W, 36v Ezee geared front hub motor
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
cachexian
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby KenGS » Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:00 pm

cachexian wrote:On another note, I hit that door going at 25kph or thereabouts. That seemed pretty fast when running to a stationary and reasonably sharp object.

Perhaps we should mandate a top speed of 5kph for all bicycles to allow for the lowest common denominator of door-openers?
:mrgreen: :D :D

Sure the commuting times would be hopeless but at least the door-openers wouldn't have to lose their no-claim bonus on their car insurance. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Or cars should be designed with inward opening doors
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby TailWind » Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:18 pm

KenGS wrote:
cachexian wrote:On another note, I hit that door going at 25kph or thereabouts. That seemed pretty fast when running to a stationary and reasonably sharp object.

Perhaps we should mandate a top speed of 5kph for all bicycles to allow for the lowest common denominator of door-openers?
:mrgreen: :D :D

Sure the commuting times would be hopeless but at least the door-openers wouldn't have to lose their no-claim bonus on their car insurance. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Or cars should be designed with inward opening doors


Well, there is the Peugeot 1007:
Image

Ok, it has sliding doors, but it's an improvement. :mrgreen:
Soma Double Cross 2012 - Commuter || Giant CitySpeed (Alfine 8 IGH) - Commuter || Bakfiets Long 2011 - Cargo Bike
User avatar
TailWind
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Mill Park, Melbourne

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby Joeblake » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:54 pm

Or would this be better?


Image

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12821
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby Joeblake » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:58 pm

Or perhaps "suicide doors" should be mandatory on all cars. THEN I'm sure they'd look behind before opening.

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_door

Joe
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12821
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Night safety

Postby alan101 » Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:47 pm

A few things I practice that might be worth considering to minimise the chance of getting whacked (thinking of Cachexian). I always wear a safety reflector vest. VicRoads have an official vest (approx $35) which is orange, with (3) 2" (5cm) bands of lime green reflector material right around the vest and an extra line on a flap that extends down the bum, and a good quality zip (not velcroe tabs). The lime green and orange are both very unnatural colors, so a driver's attention is drawn to them rapidly. I've got a slightly more casual safety vest, but it still has large areas of reflective material, on fluoro lime green and orange cloth. I also ride a VN800 motorcycle, and the extra 1-2 secs of driver recognition you gain by wearing fluoro lime green are very valuable; eg with people doing freeway lane changes or entering a main rd from a side street. Many bikers would shun this look, but I've seen a few with one leg shorter than the other, too.

After nearly getting taken out on my ebike commute home by cars failing to give way at 3 local roundabouts at night, I escalated the amount of reflector tape on my bike with each occurrence. I try to have tape front/rear and on the sides. Wiggle sell an A-4 sheet for around $A10, which would easily do 2 bikes. Reflector tape can be hard to come by in LBSs, but is worth searching for. A bicycle headlight seen from the side (car at 90 deg entering roundabout) is a mere crescent of not very large light. If your bike can light up with passive reflector tape, and this occurs around the bike's extreme dimensions to outline a bike, you're well ahead of relying on just a small headlight to be seen. I also use a small led white flasher ($12) on the handlebar, as this is closer to 180 deg visible; and can draw a driver's eye to the headlight.

I have reflector tape, + white and red led on the helmet too. The front white led I run on solid, which lets me read the speedo and shifter on unlit bike tracks. I run a flashing red aft, and this is much higher than is achieved with a seat post mounted tail light. When the seat post red light and the helmet red are approached by car from behind, they will give a sense of depth perception/distance. The helmet red led is also good in thick urban traffic, as it's higher than the surrounding cars, so seen by people further back than is the case for the seat post or rack mounted red. It was the helmet lights that a Melbourne tram driver probably saw as I went across 2 lanes of standing traffic into his path, stopping in the nick of time.

I googled Cachexian's Scott bike, and it came up as having an alum fork. It's a home truth that a front hub ebike motor can have a bit of torsional moment, so alum and carbon forks are not favored and steel is preferred on ebikes. Above about $750, many retail bikes bring in carbon forks for a weight advantage; and I found $750 a sort of cutoff point when selecting a bike for steel forks. In terms of patching up a pranged bike, a steel fork can be shop had for about $65-85 and a wheel build is worth around $65 (spokes + labour) plus about $110 at LBS for a Mavic A719 double wall rim (fully welded, not pinned) which is tough, weight efficient and likely to stay true. I think we can avoid half of shituations out there by being readily seen, and for the other half we must ride defensively.

I spent $135 at LBS for my Cateye headlight (4 AA battery), which was worthwhile for lighting up the unlit Federation Trail for 70m ahead on a moonless overcast night doing 30kmh. There are tail lights on Wiggle for $25-45 which have leds showing to the sides, which is a fantastic recent innovation. A safety vest provides a good square foot of bright material visible in all directions, so is cheap and effective, and carries a near universal message to 'look out'. A velcroe reflector band around the traffic side ankle can attract attention going up/down, too. That's largely the sum of my 3 years experience with night ebiking.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby cachexian » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:17 pm

It's a bit off topic for this thread but I thought long and hard about the aluminium fork issue before I settled on it. Darren at EVS said that it wasn't recommended but they'd had many customers who'd used aluminium forks without significant issues reported. My experience was that I had to file the fork a bit to fit the motor into it because the thicker profile of the aluminium didn't quite fit around the motor and the hub rubbed against the fork. This made installation take a bit longer than expected.

After 1875km on the aluminium fork with the Emotor there were no issues with any observable fatigue on the fork and no loosening of the anti-torque washers. I didn't ever get around to ordering a torque arm from ebikes.ca... In the end, it wasn't the torque that did the fork in.
Scott Sub 40 with 200W, 36v Ezee geared front hub motor
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
cachexian
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby cachexian » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:40 pm

Also off topic (sorry):
I'm a big fan of DealExtreme for bike lights - it's insane how many lights I've bought there in the last year. :oops:

I have forward facing:
On the handlebars: Nitelight 900 ( http://www.cellbikes.com.au/Nitelight-9 ... s-Series-2 )
Dealextreme Magicshine light is a copy of the nitelight if you don't want to buy Australian
( http://www.dealextreme.com/p/mj-808e-ha ... 8650-57100 )
On my helmet: Ultrafire C1 flashlight (230lumens)
(I had a 530 lumen light on my helmet but it was too bright to have up that high)

Rear facing:
Ultraflash light (on right side of frame down near wheel)
Magicshine MJ818 attached to the back of the bike rack)This is wired into the same rechargeable lithium battery that runs the Nitelite with a Y-connector cable
( http://www.dealextreme.com/p/magicshine ... uded-42077 )
( http://www.dealextreme.com/p/5-4mm-male ... 25cm-32753 )
Flashing led light with lens (on back of helmet)
( http://www.dealextreme.com/p/colorful-l ... 2032-66143 )

Side visibility:
Spoke lights x 2 on front wheel
( http://www.dealextreme.com/p/nite-ize-s ... 2016-51640 )
You might want to look into these Alan101. They are VERY visible at night. Despite the website saying the batteries only last for a couple of hours I've used them for over ten hours now and they are still bright. Also buy batteries from DX for a dime a dozen.

Alan101: it's a good tip the reflector stuff from Wiggle. I'll look into it.

None of that will help if the driver of the car is not looking or texting. :roll:

Cachexian.
Scott Sub 40 with 200W, 36v Ezee geared front hub motor
and...
Trek Madonne 3.1 driven by left leg and right leg
cachexian
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:39 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby raptordesigns » Thu May 31, 2012 12:13 pm

Here's the release from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport about the new national standard.

Note the line: “In addition, existing designs of machines will continue to be allowed.”
Which I think means that you will still be allowed to use a hand throttle on a machine with 200 watts or less...

http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/ck/releases/2012/May/CK013_2012.aspx
New Rules Give Cyclists a Boost
A A A Media Release
CK013/2012
30 May 2012

The Gillard Government today paved the way for a new range of electric bicycles into Australia.

Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport, Catherine King, announced changes to the national vehicle safety standards that allow for greater consumer choice—while at the same time maintaining safety.

“There is an increasing desire within the community for modern designs of power-assisted pedal cycles. This change in the Australian Design Rules will encourage modern electric bicycles as a healthy alternative to other means of transport,” Ms King said.

“With the National Cycling Strategy 2011–16 aiming to double the number of people riding by 2016, the Government is keen to work with the cycling community to implement reforms that promote healthy lifestyles.

Ms King said that changes to the standard mean the allowable power output has now increased from 200 to 250 watts giving a higher level or performance, while maintaining safety by restricting powered speed to 25 km/h. Riders are required to pedal to access the power or to reach greater speeds than 25 km/h.

The change also means new construction standards for batteries, cables and connections as well as other requirements such as braking performance and the strength of frames.

“In addition, existing designs of machines will continue to be allowed.”

The changes are an important first step towards an overall review by Austroads of alternative vehicles, which would also include mobility scooters, and a key action identified in Australia's National Road Safety Strategy 2011–20.

“It's important that this continues to be a national process that is supported by all governments,” Ms King said.

Ms King praised state and territory authorities for working constructively with the Commonwealth on this change.

However, she said that changes to state and territory road rules may be necessary to allow use of the new electric bicycles and advised people to contact their state road authorities to confirm local provisions.

The standard that has now been adopted is EN 15194.
User avatar
raptordesigns
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:59 pm

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby Joeblake » Thu May 31, 2012 12:30 pm

That would seem to be a very sensible, pragmatic approach.

The standard that has now been adopted is EN 15194. *

At least now we can get some certainty, and all the arguing will stop. (Really? :roll: )

I wonder whether the value of "existing design" machines will go up now? :mrgreen:

Joe

* https://www.astandis.at/shopV5/Preview. ... dLocale=en
To acquire immunity to eloquence is of the utmost importance to the citizens of a democracy
Bertrand Russell
Many people feel their lifestyle has a high price, but they're quite cool with that .. as long as somebody ELSE pays the price.
Joeblake
 
Posts: 12821
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Lesmurdie WA

Re: Legal issues - what are the DEFINITIVE laws

Postby raptordesigns » Thu May 31, 2012 1:44 pm

raptordesigns wrote:Here's the release from the Department of Infrastructure and Transport about the new national standard.


For clarification:

The changes amend the Australian Design Rules to include a new definition "Pedalec" which means a vehicle meeting European Committee for Standardization EN 15194:2009 or EN 15194:2009+A1:2011

It amends the existing ADR definition of a “POWER-ASSISTED PEDAL CYCLE (AB) to include Pedelecs - in addition to the existing class of pedal cycles with a maximum power output not exceeding 200 watts.

My reading: You can have either a 250w Pedelec with power assisted pedalling only limited to 25km/hr, or an up to 200w electric/pedal vehicle with throttle or power assisted pedalling with no speed limit as we have had previously.

There's probably an ongoing market for both depending on usage. For example, my commute is a reasonably flat one, and the motor is there mainly to lift my speed and reduce my commute time (so I can sleep in) without me having to raise too much of a sweat and need a shower (the 200w will kick the e-recumbent along at 42km/hr at the top end, on the flat, no headwind, no pedalling with a good charge, thanks to aerodynamics). A 25km limit would be of no benefit whatsoever.

John R.
User avatar
raptordesigns
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:59 pm

Post deleted - replicated prev content

Postby alan101 » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:20 pm

Post deleted - replicated prev content (new 250w ebike leg'n)
Last edited by alan101 on Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
alan101
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Bicycles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit
cron