Bicyclist thread

[Simon]

I still don't understand why they don't have a 'recharge' by using cycling with the motor charging the batteries. All alternators are are a kind of motor - hybrid cars now often have a combined motor/alternator.

Example; A couple of weeks ago I was considering getting one to use to go into the office occasionally in the summer. Such a trip would involve riding up Reigate hill in the mornings, and down in the evening. Obviously the assist would be lovely going in, but coming home you've got about a 1.5 mile downhill stretch where you'd otherwise be freewheeling and braking. Why can't you use that (or even a gentle pedal as well) to charge the batteries?

[unzippy]

I still don't understand why they don't have a 'recharge' by using cycling with the motor charging the batteries. All alternators are are a kind of motor - hybrid cars now often have a combined motor/alternator.

They do, regenerative braking etc, but they are the mega expensive ones.
https://www.stealthelectricbikes.com/ho ... tric-bike/

[Rich B]

Plus it would make it slow on the downhills!

[drcarlos]

e-bikes will get banned in areas like Swinley the moment one irresponsible rider hits someone with one. This is especially likely with the modders de-restricting them and such.

On the road they can be regulated (probably requiring insurance) off road it's harder so they'll just get banned.

I think instead of being a long term thing they'll be a short term fad.

Carl.

I reckon you’re 100% wrong.

Let’s see if this goes anywhere then - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -in-london there’s usually a watershed event that causes something to be looked at and reviewed in more detail. This is only a week old so no furore has been whipped up yet. Yet when the victims families want to claim compensation who do they turn to? Obviously the rider but suing them is just likely to end in nothing when they declare bankrupt. Then you have the authority for allowing them on the road unregulated (uninsured). It only takes one enterprising ambulance chaser and all the authorities will then panic that they could be liable for allowing use on their land and they’ll quickly shut up shop.

Carl

[Mito Man]

I’ll buy one when they’re closer to banning them, and I would want a subtle one where you can’t tell if it’s a ebike or normal one.

I used my electric longboard almost everyday in London during the heatwave, lovely way to get around with no sweating. Every time I saw the police I just slowed down and used it ‘manually’

[unzippy]

e-bikes will get banned in areas like Swinley the moment one irresponsible rider hits someone with one. This is especially likely with the modders de-restricting them and such.

On the road they can be regulated (probably requiring insurance) off road it's harder so they'll just get banned.

I think instead of being a long term thing they'll be a short term fad.

Carl.

I reckon you’re 100% wrong.

Let’s see if this goes anywhere then - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -in-london there’s usually a watershed event that causes something to be looked at and reviewed in more detail. This is only a week old so no furore has been whipped up yet. Yet when the victims families want to claim compensation who do they turn to? Obviously the rider but suing them is just likely to end in nothing when they declare bankrupt. Then you have the authority for allowing them on the road unregulated (uninsured). It only takes one enterprising ambulance chaser and all the authorities will then panic that they could be liable for allowing use on their land and they’ll quickly shut up shop.

Carl

Why would it go anywhere? So long as the bike was legit it's a straightforward case.

[NotoriousREV]

e-bikes will get banned in areas like Swinley the moment one irresponsible rider hits someone with one. This is especially likely with the modders de-restricting them and such.

On the road they can be regulated (probably requiring insurance) off road it's harder so they'll just get banned.

I think instead of being a long term thing they'll be a short term fad.

Carl.

I reckon you’re 100% wrong.

Let’s see if this goes anywhere then - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -in-london there’s usually a watershed event that causes something to be looked at and reviewed in more detail. This is only a week old so no furore has been whipped up yet. Yet when the victims families want to claim compensation who do they turn to? Obviously the rider but suing them is just likely to end in nothing when they declare bankrupt. Then you have the authority for allowing them on the road unregulated (uninsured). It only takes one enterprising ambulance chaser and all the authorities will then panic that they could be liable for allowing use on their land and they’ll quickly shut up shop.

Carl

Remember when that woman was killed by that idiot on the fixie and they banned them after the massive furore?

[drcarlos]

I reckon you’re 100% wrong.

Let’s see if this goes anywhere then - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -in-london there’s usually a watershed event that causes something to be looked at and reviewed in more detail. This is only a week old so no furore has been whipped up yet. Yet when the victims families want to claim compensation who do they turn to? Obviously the rider but suing them is just likely to end in nothing when they declare bankrupt. Then you have the authority for allowing them on the road unregulated (uninsured). It only takes one enterprising ambulance chaser and all the authorities will then panic that they could be liable for allowing use on their land and they’ll quickly shut up shop.

Carl

Remember when that woman was killed by that idiot on the fixie and they banned them after the massive furore?

The bike he was riding was already illegal to ride on the road, hence why he is serving time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41036581

Carl.

[NotoriousREV]

Let’s see if this goes anywhere then - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -in-london there’s usually a watershed event that causes something to be looked at and reviewed in more detail. This is only a week old so no furore has been whipped up yet. Yet when the victims families want to claim compensation who do they turn to? Obviously the rider but suing them is just likely to end in nothing when they declare bankrupt. Then you have the authority for allowing them on the road unregulated (uninsured). It only takes one enterprising ambulance chaser and all the authorities will then panic that they could be liable for allowing use on their land and they’ll quickly shut up shop.

Carl

Remember when that woman was killed by that idiot on the fixie and they banned them after the massive furore?

The bike he was riding was already illegal to ride on the road, hence why he is serving time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41036581

Carl.

Right. But there’s still no talk of registration, insurance or anything being banned. The accident you linked to has nothing remarkable about it other than being the first death caused by an eBike, but the accident didn’t occur because it was an eBike, it could’ve happened with any bike. And if it turns out it was a chipped eBike, then your argument also applies: it was already illegal.

[drcarlos]

But there is: https://www.bikebiz.com/landscape/bikes ... ance-in-eu

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/ ... -insurance

Carl

[NotoriousREV]

But there is: https://www.bikebiz.com/landscape/bikes ... ance-in-eu

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/ ... -insurance

Carl

I said there was no talk of insurance etc for normal cycles. Please try to keep up.

Edit: If insurance for eBikes becomes mandatory, that's another extremely strong indicator that they won't get banned as it'll be a lovely source of income for an industry that knows how to lobby the government.

[drcarlos]

But there is: https://www.bikebiz.com/landscape/bikes ... ance-in-eu

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/ ... -insurance

Carl

I said there was no talk of insurance etc for normal cycles. Please try to keep up.

Edit: If insurance for eBikes becomes mandatory, that's another extremely strong indicator that they won't get banned as it'll be a lovely source of income for an industry that knows how to lobby the government.

The fixie you referred to in the previous sentence is not a normal cycle (I accept that the lack of a front brake maybe a small detail lost on a non-rider but it's quite important) and cannot be ridden legally on the road, It's already illegal, so therefore banned and the police as noted in the article can confiscate them from riders. That's why they are now fitting brakes. Normal Cycles are not being discussed in this branch only 'illegal' fixies and ebikes. Sorry I'm not a mind reader, I did not know you were referring to normal cycles.

There are two cases at play though on the road where if eBikes were classed as some sort of motorbike as the EC do they need insurance, fine all well and good it will probably cost about £30 a year of something small and won't put off most people.

Off-road in places like Swinley Forest would eBikes be banned? If as mentioned they are classed as a motorised vehicle and need insurance well they may well be as the only motorised vehicles allowed on the fireroads are emergency services, rangers and the contractors performing the forestry operations. Trail centres and bike parks would have to decide if they are ok and may decide to load on fees to cover ebikes and any liability they may incur by allowing them to be used.

[drcarlos]

I reckon you’re 100% wrong.

Let’s see if this goes anywhere then - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -in-london there’s usually a watershed event that causes something to be looked at and reviewed in more detail. This is only a week old so no furore has been whipped up yet. Yet when the victims families want to claim compensation who do they turn to? Obviously the rider but suing them is just likely to end in nothing when they declare bankrupt. Then you have the authority for allowing them on the road unregulated (uninsured). It only takes one enterprising ambulance chaser and all the authorities will then panic that they could be liable for allowing use on their land and they’ll quickly shut up shop.

Carl

Why would it go anywhere? So long as the bike was legit it's a straightforward case.

If he is convicted (sounds pretty likely as he did a runner and left her to die and that's just low) the victims family may want compensation for riding what the EU now class as a motorised vehicle. Who do they pursue? No point in the rider he'll just go bankrupt? the makers, the sellers, the highways agency (can they even be sued in court?) for allowing them on the road with no insurance?

[NotoriousREV]

Let’s see if this goes anywhere then - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -in-london there’s usually a watershed event that causes something to be looked at and reviewed in more detail. This is only a week old so no furore has been whipped up yet. Yet when the victims families want to claim compensation who do they turn to? Obviously the rider but suing them is just likely to end in nothing when they declare bankrupt. Then you have the authority for allowing them on the road unregulated (uninsured). It only takes one enterprising ambulance chaser and all the authorities will then panic that they could be liable for allowing use on their land and they’ll quickly shut up shop.

Carl

Why would it go anywhere? So long as the bike was legit it's a straightforward case.

If he is convicted (sounds pretty likely as he did a runner and left her to die and that's just low) the victims family may want compensation for riding what the EU now class as a motorised vehicle. Who do they pursue? No point in the rider he'll just go bankrupt? the makers, the sellers, the highways agency (can they even be sued in court?) for allowing them on the road with no insurance?

And what if he was riding a normal bike? Would all of this stuff just go away?

[NotoriousREV]

The fixie you referred to in the previous sentence is not a normal cycle (I accept that the lack of a front brake maybe a small detail lost on a non-rider but it's quite important) and cannot be ridden legally on the road, It's already illegal, so therefore banned and the police as noted in the article can confiscate them from riders. That's why they are now fitting brakes. Normal Cycles are not being discussed in this branch only 'illegal' fixies and ebikes. Sorry I'm not a mind reader, I did not know you were referring to normal cycles.

LOL, how aspie are you to consider that we were only discussing fixies with a brake missing?

People get killed and injured by bikes and no one is seriously calling for 3rd party insurance, or registration etc. on those.

eBikes are restricted to speeds that are easily achievable by normal people on normal bikes and nothing about eBikes makes them more or less likely to kill or injure a pedestrian.

That a proposal has been put forward by an EU commissioner to have eBikes considered a motorbike means absolutely nothing. Many proposals are put forward, most don't get anywhere.

You have provided zero evidence that eBikes will be a short term fad, nor have you provided any justification for them being outright banned anywhere.

[JLv3.0]

#DDT

[GG.]

Not connected to this incident but saw a top grade candidate for another YCLAC (I guess you can work that one out) award the other day.

Stream of 4 or 5 pedestrians crossing the road at bank junction in the morning with a bike approaching at speed. Instead of slowing even slightly and/or shouting he just continued at the same speed (and continued pedalling) and swerved slightly to hit a gap between them.

I appreciate he was cycling through a green light and the pedestrian should be looking but they weren't as they often don't. Why do some people think this is ok?

[240PP]

You have provided zero evidence that eBikes will be a short term fad, nor have you provided any justification for them being outright banned anywhere. I bid you good day, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!

[Rich B]

Not connected to this incident but saw a top grade candidate for another YCLAC (I guess you can work that one out) award the other day.

Stream of 4 or 5 pedestrians crossing the road at bank junction in the morning with a bike approaching at speed. Instead of slowing even slightly and/or shouting he just continued at the same speed (and continued pedalling) and swerved slightly to hit a gap between them.

I appreciate he was cycling through a green light and the pedestrian should be looking but they weren't as they often don't. Why do some people think this is ok?

did he make it? If so, then what’s the issue?

[Simon]

10 pages.