Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Rockets]

28 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

This thread has descended into an absolute farce. And in answer, no. Is a moped a bike? No. If my grandmother had wheels, she also wouldn’t have been a bike. 15 pages of drivel, so far. 

But a push bike with an electric motor is not a moped...the attached is not a moped...is it - thats the drivel being spouted on here people claiming that is a moped?

Maybe lets put this to an emoji vote:

All those who think these are bikes click the laughing emoji

All those who think they are mopeds click the confused emoji

Honestly.....

Edited Thursday at 20:39 by Rockets

[Kurt_Lane]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

But a push bike with an electric motor is not a moped...the attached is not a moped...is it - thats the drivel being spouted on here people claiming that is a moped?

 

At no point did I say that any of the bikes in your photo is a moped. The key is the full stop between my sentences - it looks like this “.”, by the way. 

There is no need to argue any of the points about what constitutes a bicycle: EAPC standards and legal requirements

[first mate]

5 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

At no point did I say that any of the bikes in your photo is a moped. The key is the full stop between my sentences - it looks like this “.”, by the way. 

There is no need to argue any of the points about what constitutes a bicycle: EAPC standards and legal requirements

The vehicles shown in the photo above are bikes that are powered. It is hard to tell, just from the photos, how fast each bike can go. Glad we can agree that most would not refer to them as "mopeds". 

[Rockets]

20 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

At no point did I say that any of the bikes in your photo is a moped. The key is the full stop between my sentences - it looks like this “.”, by the way. 

But Kurt - that was what the preceding "drivel" was about - Earl trying to claim that those are mopeds....which I think we can all agree they are not. They are bikes with an electric motor fitted.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 30/01/2025 at 09:38, Earl Aelfheah said:

On 29/01/2025 at 19:01, Rockets said:

No because it is, in fact, a standard pushbike converted to go 70mph....the kits are sold to go on a bog standard bike.....

What's that saying that it if looks like a duck, walks like a duck....;-) 

It doesn't 'walk like a duck' though does it. A push bike doesn't have a throttle and cannot travel at 70mph powered by a motor.

On 30/01/2025 at 11:11, Rockets said:

But it is still a bike isn't it - a bike with a motor? You're not trying to suggest that these aren't bikes are you and that these delivery drivers aren't cyclists?

Are you're seriously suggesting that a push bike is the same as a electric moped capable of travelling at 70 mph, and that they should be regulated in the same way? So for bicycles to have the same regulations applied as motorbikes? 

[ab29]

On 06/12/2023 at 10:17, tedfudge said:

Admin Note: this topic has been split from the "20mph in Southwark" one.

 

It's not just motorists who speed , buses speed bet they dont get fined , I've seen many many cyclists speed believe me , I've been doing 20 over blackfriars bridge and cyclists have been whizzing past in the cycle lanes , if motorists have to abide by the 20mph on roads then so should cyclists , I've been over taken by cyclists when I've been doing 20 loads of times so annoying that they get away with it where as motorists get flashed by cameras or stopped by the police but cyclists can just carry on with no fear of fines or points on licence 

Yes. And more: cyclicts should pass a test before being allowed to cycle ( at least in London). They should have plates issued so they can be identified in case of any accidents

[Kurt_Lane]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you're seriously suggesting that a push bike is the same as an electric moped capable of travelling at 70 mph, and that they should be regulated in the same way? So for bicycles to have the same regulations applied as motorbikes? 

No, that’s is not what I have suggested. At least some of the bikes in the photo are not going to be categorised as electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPCs) so they are treated as motor vehicles under the law, requiring tax and insurance. The regulations are clear in the link I provided.

Motor vehicles include motor bikes and also E-bikes that don’t meet the EAPC classification.  

I feel that your efforts would be more productive in campaigning for e-bikes that are in fact motor vehicles to be confiscated which is already under the current power of the police. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you're seriously suggesting that a push bike is the same as a electric moped capable of travelling at 70 mph, and that they should be regulated in the same way?

A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?

[Earl Aelfheah]

24 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

No, that’s is not what I have suggested.

I wasn't aiming that at you - I'm aware that's not what you were saying. I was clarifying Rockets position. He's confirmed that he considers a e-moped capable of doing 70mph to be the same as a push bike (bizarrely)

22 minutes ago, Rockets said:

A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?

Obviously I don't agree, and neither does the law. Because it's clearly ridiculous. But you didn't answer the second part of my question. Are you're suggesting that a push bike should be regulated in the same way as a moped / motorbike capable of travelling at 70 mph?

Edited Friday at 15:11 by Earl Aelfheah

[Kurt_Lane]

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?

It is a motor vehicle; it is not an electrically assisted pedal cycle. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

It is a motor vehicle; it is not an electrically assisted pedal cycle. 

Exactly. A bike with an electric motor and a throttle that can travel at 70mph is very clearly classed as a moped or motorcycle. Riding an electric bike: the rules - GOV.UK The fact that the motor is electric makes no difference.

Quote

When your bike is not an EAPC

If your electric bike does not meet the EAPC rules then it’s classed as a motorcycle or moped.

Your bike is not an EAPC if it:

• can be propelled at more than 15.5 miles per hour (mph) by the motor
• has a continuous rated power output higher than 250 watts
• does not have pedals that can propel it

If your electric bike is not an EAPC it must be registered and taxed.

You need to:

• get a valid driving licence to ride one 
• wear a motorcycle helmet that meets British safety standards
• insure your vehicle

So @Rockets is arguing that bicycles should be treated the same as motorbikes. 

Edited Friday at 15:12 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

Exactly. A bike with an electric motor and a throttle that can travel at 70mph is very clearly classed as a moped or motorcycle. Riding an electric bike: the rules - GOV.UK

But to members of the general public, walking around Soho for example, how do they present themselves (and I remind you this is where this part of the discussion started)?.....;-)

Do people look and think "oh look there's a bad cyclist" or do they think "oh look there is someone riding (badly) an illegally modified pushbike that should actually be classified as an electric motorbike/moped due to its power output but of course only if it had a number plate, road fund licence and indicators.......which it doesn't...."

They present as a bad cyclist and this is what is moulding the negative perception towards cyclists - delivery riders, Lime bike riders, red light cyclists, pavement cyclists are all doing massive harm to the perception of cyclists and to anyone who cycles, like me, this is something that has to be urgently addressed.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Again you duck the question. You say that bicycles and motorbikes are the same. So I assume you're arguing that they should be regulated in the same way?

[Rockets]

Earl I am the one not ducking the question I can assure you. Those delivery bikes which are wrecking havoc in central London and putting pedestrians at risk are not, in the eyes of the public, motorbikes. They are bicycles. Do you agree or disagree?

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Those delivery bikes which are wrecking havoc in central London and putting pedestrians at risk are not, in the eyes of the public, motorbikes. They are bicycles. Do you agree or disagree?

I've answered that question already. 

44 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Obviously I don't agree, and neither does the law. Because it's clearly ridiculous.

The specific example you gave, of a throttle driven bike able to travel at 70mph, is not a bicycle (not my opinion, but a legal fact).

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Earl I am the one not ducking the question I can assure you

And yet it's notable that you still haven't answered. 

You've repeatedly claimed that a motorbike and a bicycle should be placed in the same vehicle class. The corollary of that argument is that they should be regulated in the same way; which would mean all bicycles would have to be registered and taxed, you would require a valid driving licence to ride one, would have to wear a motorcycle helmet that meets British safety standards and insure your bicycle. 

If this isn't your argument, then please do elaborate. 

Edited Friday at 15:40 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

Up until a couple or so years (possibly slightly longer) ago I was very able to distinguish a push bike from a moped, amongst other things the moped had a petrol engine (often two stroke)  and sounded like a moped. It would only have been legally driven by someone with an appropriate licence (my car licence allowed me also to ride mopeds legally if, if I recall, under 50cc). It needed identity.

Now there are low powered (speed limited) electric assisted cycles which are road legal for anyone with a credit or debit card, apparently, to drive without licence or test, and there are high powered, road illegal, electric vehicles which look pretty well identical, and again have no warning engine sounds. 

These are the modern equivalent to mopeds (save, unlike mopeds, they are not road legal and their drivers require no licence, as I understand it) but the ordinary joe would be hard pressed to distinguish them (unless speeding) from their legal brothers.

I think this is the point that is trying to be made. 

If they are on the road (they are) and can't be readily distinguished from electric assisted bicycles  to the casual and 'lay' observer then both classes of vehicle should be treated similarly, under the same rules.

[ab29]

1 hour ago, ab29 said:

Yes. And more: cyclicts should pass a test before being allowed to cycle ( at least in London). They should have plates issued so they can be identified in case of any accidents

And more: any bike - offenders should be registered and have their cycling licence revoked. I love cycling but what's happening in London at the moment is shocking

[Earl Aelfheah]

37 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

These are the modern equivalent to mopeds (save, unlike mopeds, they are not road legal and their drivers require no licence, as I understand it) but the ordinary joe would be hard pressed to distinguish them (unless speeding) from their legal brothers.

I think this is the point that is trying to be made. 

If they are on the road (they are) and can't be readily distinguished from electric assisted bicycles  to the casual and 'lay' observer then both classes of vehicle should be treated similarly, under the same rules.

This isn't the argument being made by @Rockets though; He'd not suggested that pedal assist e-bikes and illegal mopeds should be treated the same. He has argued that illegal mopeds and push bikes should be treated the same. He has ducked the question of what that means for regulation (clearly we know what it would mean, which is why he's walking the argument right up to the line and then refusing to take it the extra millimetre to it's logical conclusion). 

Edited Friday at 16:31 by Earl Aelfheah

[Kurt_Lane]

7 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

If they are on the road (they are) and can't be readily distinguished from electric assisted bicycles  to the casual and 'lay' observer then both classes of vehicle should be treated similarly, under the same rules.

I don’t see the logic, not at least because the lay public is not in a position to act differently because of it. As a comparative example, every day in the U.K. there are 300,000 uninsured car drivers - I cannot tell which cars are uninsured but I don’t suggest that all cars are banned because of it. Enforced of existing laws are required not additional laws.

It is already easily enough to tell that someone on a bike, without a number plate, going 20 mph either on the flat or uphill, and without pedalling is riding an illegal motor vehicle. The issue is that the harm caused is low therefore the police resources provided to address the issue is low. If you want to address the antisocial aspect of the riders then this is a separate matter for the police that can be also addressed under existing legalisation. Writing to your MP or campaigning for addressing the issue through existing legislation would help make it a priority for the stretched police resources. More laws won’t solve anything if even current laws are not enforced. 

[ab29]

9 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

I don’t see the logic, not at least because the lay public is not in a position to act differently because of it. As a comparative example, every day in the U.K. there are 300,000 uninsured car drivers - I cannot tell which cars are uninsured but I don’t suggest that all cars are banned because of it. Enforced of existing laws are required not additional laws.

It is already easily enough to tell that someone on a bike, without a number plate, going 20 mph either on the flat or uphill, and without pedalling is riding an illegal motor vehicle. The issue is that the harm caused is low therefore the police resources provided to address the issue is low. If you want to address the antisocial aspect of the riders then this is a separate matter for the police that can be also addressed under existing legalisation. Writing to your MP or campaigning for addressing the issue through existing legislation would help make it a priority for the stretched police resources. More laws won’t solve anything if even current laws are not enforced. 

"It is already easily enough to tell that someone on abike, without a number plate, going 20 mph either onthe flat or uphill, and without pedalling is riding anillegal motor vehicle" - how do you identify the actual individual driving the vehicle in question?

Edited Friday at 16:22 by ab29

[Kurt_Lane]

13 minutes ago, ab29 said:

"It is already easily enough to tell that someone on abike, without a number plate, going 20 mph either onthe flat or uphill, and without pedalling is riding anillegal motor vehicle" - how do you identify the actual individual driving the vehicle in question?

I don’t - the same as for uninsured drivers, distracted drivers, or drunk drivers. All are operating motor vehicles illegally.  Even if I was to identify those groups, I am not in a position to act on it. The police can and do enforce laws by stopping illegal e-bikes and uninsured drivers, drunk drivers, etc. I don’t see why you are not asking for enforcement of existing laws regarding illegal e-bikes and antisocial cycling.

[Rockets]

58 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

He has argued that illegal mopeds and push bikes should be treated the same.

Earl - you're meandering and losing me again.....what I was arguing about was that push bikes with an electric conversion kit are not identified as mopeds by those pedestrians that they are causing huge problems for. They are seen as bad cyclists. Are you advocating that push bikes with electric conversion kits should be registered as you seem to want to treat them differently to other forms of cycling?

58 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

As a comparative example, every day in the U.K. there are 300,000 uninsured car drivers - I cannot tell which cars are uninsured but I don’t suggest that all cars are banned because of it. Enforced of existing laws are required not additional laws.

But the police can via ANPR.

 

[ab29]

25 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

I don’t - the same as for uninsured drivers, distracted drivers, or drunk drivers. All are operating motor vehicles illegally.  Even if I was to identify those groups, I am not in a position to act on it. The police can and do enforce laws by stopping illegal e-bikes and uninsured drivers, drunk drivers, etc. I don’t see why you are not asking for enforcement of existing laws regarding illegal e-bikes and antisocial cycling.

"the same as for uninsured drivers, distracted drivers, or drunk drivers." - of mototor vehicles? Cars have number plates meaning the individuals driving can be identified as opposed to bicycles (drivers?)

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Earl - you're meandering and losing me again

Oh that old tactic. Repeatedly ducking the question and then pretending you don’t you don’t understand 🙄

Edited Friday at 17:29 by Earl Aelfheah

[ab29]

6 minutes ago, ab29 said:

"the same as for uninsured drivers, distracted drivers, or drunk drivers." - of mototor vehicles? Cars have number plates meaning the individuals driving can be identified as opposed to bicycles (drivers?)

Just to add: if cyclists have nothing to hide, always stop at green light and are law abiding - what is the problem?