Thanks for your response Sunder, that adds a lot of context to your original post, I appreciate it.
But - Are 70% of cars defected, the drivers fined, and the car impounded? No.
Are 70% of insurance claims invalidated because the car was technically not road legal? No.
Because if someone has a rear end accident, and the reason that the car was not road legal was that the exhaust was too loud, this has no bearing on liability
It's an interesting point, and I've not yet heard from TMR their viewpoint, but I'd expect the situation is slightly different. There is a difference with a defect coming about through age or wear and tear (as in your gear shifter and exhaust examples) and through knowingly and intentionally modifying a vehicle to be non-compliant. The first example that comes to mind for me here would be tampering with the speed-limiter on a heavy vehicle. Or rebuilding a car and writing my own roadworthy certificate without taking it to a qualified mechanic. Now of course in the first example the risk and penalties are extremely severe due to the possible consequences, and therefore compliance is also enforced fairly strictly and regularly. For the second example, I'm sure there's plenty of unroadworthy cars driving around, but the fact that the risk of roadworthy compliance being enforced is somewhat low, doesn't make it any less illegal. There may be a low risk of enforcement on an ebike at the moment, but who's to say that won't change? Should I build a non-compliant bike now just because the risk of enforcement and consequences is low? If enforcement is stepped-up, I'd then be in the position where my only option to comply would be to do the very thing I should have done in the first place and purchase a compliant kit (although probably just the motor at this point). To be clear, it will only take one idiot doing something stupid enough to injure or scare someone important for TMR/state police to start enforcing compliance. Qld has already amended their legislation to prevent bikes being operated by throttle alone due to some dangerous situations on the Gold Coast.
Further, regarding compliance here, in my understanding, the easiest way to tell the difference between a compliant motor and non-compliant motor is by inspecting the motor for the rated wattage and for an CE EN15194 tag. If the wattage is over 200w, and there is no compliance tag, that's the easiest way for an inspector to visually check compliance (it's what I'd do if I worked in that part of compliance - lowest hanging fruit). If the motor is not marked with a wattage, then it's questionable what the action would be - serve an infringement notice? Issue a caution? Impound and test? Why bother trying to outsmart them, why not just comply? (sorry, this is a bit of trolling here - mostly because this is actually what I'm interested in).
But, if you're not constantly checking that your CAR is not one of the 70% that is not road worthy under the letter of the law, then why are you obsessing over why you can't get someone else to put a stamp on your bike, when it is otherwise compliant?
For three reasons. Firstly, maybe I am. I noticed two brake lights out yesterday and immediately repaired one loose connection and went out to buy a new bulb for the other. Couldn't live with myself if someone rear-ended the car with my wife and child inside because they couldn't see the brake lights. It's my responsibility (to myself, my family and other road users) to ensure my vehicle is roadworthy and fit for purpose to the best of my ability and knowledge. Where my knowledge ends, I rely on my mechanic - but that doesn't absolve my responsibility except in very extreme circumstances. Call me naïve, but when it comes to two-tonne lumps of steel hurtling down the road at speeds of up to 110km/hr, I'd like to hope everyone else feels the same obligation. Maybe they don't, but that's on them - I do my part and can honestly say to any traffic cop that my car is roadworthy to the best of my knowledge.
Secondly, and somewhat related to the first point, because the person riding this bike will not be me, it will be my wife with my young son (it's a cargo bike). Further, my wife or I may well be carting other people's children as well. It's one thing for me to be happy to ride a non-compliant bike by myself (or whack on a sticker to provide a veneer of compliance) and accept any consequences, but it's another thing to ask or make someone else (or their children) take that risk (and in my opinion, unethical if you know it is not compliant and don't tell them).
Finally, because it's a reasonable question. Again, there's a difference you've glossed over regarding passive non-compliance through wear, tear and age, and active non-compliance through intentionally and knowingly installing or modifying something to be non-compliant. Let's be clear, while there may be a scale from slightly illegal to seriously illegal when it comes to our perception of risk and consequences (which is where you seem to be heading), non-compliance is still non-compliance. Maybe that's your point: why bother installing a 250w Pedelec system without a compliance tag if it's just as non-compliant as a 500w/1000w system? Are you operating on the assumption that if your compliance is assessed a Police/compliance officer is going to accept the justification that you've at least tried to make the 250w system as technologically compliant as possible? Will they really accept "Everything is exactly the same as a compliant Pedelec, except I've never had it tested for compliance, but I believe it complies with the legislation, and therefore I put that sticker on there myself"? Maybe they will...
I am genuinely interested in this justification, as I expect a lot of other people also rely on it.
Having a bike that is compliant with the law, but not certified so, does not substantially raise that risk.
Just because the risk of consequences at this point in time may not justify compliance, that is something which may change fairly rapidly. It's also not really prudent to say "the risk of consequences for my actions are low, therefore there's no need to obsess about compliance" as you've said above - especially when my original question is about how I can modify a bike to comply with the law, not "What are your opinions on the subject of complying with the law?".
So far your responses have become stuck on the philosophical point of whether we should comply with the law due to the risks associated with non-compliance, you've still not provided any practical advice on how to comply even if one wished to do so. I clearly accept that the law appears to be a significant hindrance, and you seem to have spent a lot of time trying to convince me that it's not worth trying to comply. In risk management terms, you appear to have rated the probability or likelihood of compliance being enforced as 'Low' and the consequences of such compliance also as 'Low', but that's not the case for everyone. Being found to be operating an illegal motorised cycle (e.g. riding an unregistered, unroadworthy vehicle without appropriate protective equipment, on a footpath) could lead to a loss of one's license, and subsequently their livelihood. The risk of this is still 'Low' in probability, but 'High' in expected consequences. I'm only saying this to point out that everyone has a different risk tolerance, and while the law may be unreasonable, someone's reasons for wanting to comply with that law may be perfectly reasonable.
Ultimately, we have laws that have been adopted with little forethought, that's a given, but my question was about how I can comply with them practically, not whether anyone has opinions on whether I should bother complying with them.
This is what is interesting to me, as it seems the general response from a lot of people is "don't worry about it, nobody checks compliance". But behind this there appears to be the more pragmatic reason that practically, it is difficult to gain compliance with the laws when retrofitting an existing bike because it's not practical to undertake the EN15194 compliance process or otherwise cost-effective to convert to the Pedelec standard, and because so few appropriate motors exist that are rated to the max 200w standard.
There's no TAFE course you can do to get a certifier's license for EN15194. If you didn't build the bike, you can't certify it. If you did, you can certify it with no formal education or license - but you are signing your own rights away by saying you checked and believe the bike was compliant.
Yes, that was what I was trying to get at in my previous comment. It's not possible to do this without going through the expense of having each specific test under EN15194 completed by a competent assessor, and currently I'm not even sure that there are testing labs in Australia that can perform all of the tests. It is somewhat equivalent to writing your own roadworthy certificate for a car that you've just put together when you're neither a qualified mechanic or certified assessor. The risk may be lower, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.
Which is what leads me to the last section. I wasn't criticising you for wanting the bike to be legal. For a very long time, I did everything in my power to make sure my bike was 100% legal as well.
This is what I came here for... and then you skipped right on past...and obviously decided it wasn't worthwhile. Why - from a practical sense?
You will not lose eligibility for compensation for someone else's wrong doing, unless your bike is so far from the standard, that you do significantly contribute to your own injuries - and unless you plan on taking public liability insurance for cycling, your risk for liability for injury caused doesn't change.
I am and many people would probably be covered by multiple schemes (membership with bicycle associations, Work Cover, third party and state insurance schemes etc.) each of which might cover slightly different situations. Again, you seem to be relying on the assumption that an insurance scheme, or company, would be disinterested in the fact that I knowingly and intentionally modified my ebike to be non-compliant. I find that very difficult to believe as one of the first things they would do is to determine whether I am eligible for compensation, and to do so, they first need to be satisfied that I have not breached our implied or explicit agreement (which usually says something about not intentionally doing something illegal, and fully disclosing anything that might affect my eligibility for coverage under the scheme).
If I came to you and said "I have a bike that is 'almost' compliant with the relevant laws, will you insure me?" I expect you wouldn't, and ultimately neither would anyone else who is aware of that fact. Insurance companies (and many schemes) aren't really the type who say "well, you technically breached our agreement to cover you, but here's a payout anyway". Nope, it'll be "Go try the NDIS, maybe they'll give you some money for a custom made 200w mobility tricycle". When it comes to insurance, it's best not to make assumptions they'll pay up if you know you're likely breaking your end of the agreement.
Seriously, does nobody have practical advice on where to source a legal kit from??