Aussie 200 Watt Limit Thread

[sn0wchyld]

We're the country with mandatory bicycle helmet laws (despite the fact that it has a net-negative effect on population health). I doubt they're going to legalise our ebike hot-rods and Stealths anytime soon.

Youve never been hit before.... Helmets save lives. I'd have brain damage and a large portion of my scalp across the road if I didnt have a helmet.

I was T-boned by a car on a bicycle. A bike helmet saved my life and could be proven to have done so. But even so, I agree that MHL increases ( not decreases ) rider risk level and the helmets that are mandated are just dangerous.

I pick and choose my bicycle helmets very carefully, and technically, the ones I do choose are illegal, but I would not wear a legal helmet on a bicycle because they are dangerous. Mandatory helmet law helmets also lead to deaths where there would be no death if the helmet was not involved. They are a good example of best-intentions leading to a worse outcome due to the demonstrably poor knowledge of cycling by those who made the decision in the first place, based only on experience with impact-related injuries sustained while cycling. Even neurosurgeons are split on the topic of whether they do more good or harm.

got some studies you can link? what exactly makes them dangerous?
but yea, agree'd on the bike laws. People have been campaigning to change the limits since the early 90's (or earlier, thats just the earliest forum ive found) and after about 15 years of campaigning, they just copy pasted the EU laws. 'lazy' doesn't quite cover it.

 

[cj7hawk]

got some studies you can link? what exactly makes them dangerous?
but yea, agree'd on the bike laws. People have been campaigning to change the limits since the early 90's (or earlier, thats just the earliest forum ive found) and after about 15 years of campaigning, they just copy pasted the EU laws. 'lazy' doesn't quite cover it.

Studies? I'd be way off topic if I went down that path, but the two main themes of study are the ones that equate risk-taking to the perceived level of protection increase, not just by cyclists, but especially by drivers of other vehicles with relation to cyclists. The others are related to the inadequate protection provided by a flimsy bit of foam in a ridiculously thin plastic shell. And of course, I suppose, there's an entire third set of studies that use the decreased level of population fitness and related-non-cycling modes of transport to cause deaths by other cause ( heart attack, obesity, diabetes etc. )

And to answer your main question, what makes helmets dangerous?

Well, my main point would be other drivers. You see, while there's no absolute evidence that riders increase the level of risk-taking commensurate to the perceived level of risk mitigation afforded by the helmet, the problem is that drivers of motor vehicles *do* assume that helmets make bike riders safer in an accident, so have no problem passing at high speed and driving dangerously around bicycles, confident in the assumption that they won't kill us.

Here's some good articles covering this;
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing-cycle-helmets/
or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

Regards
David

 

[kdog]

cj7hawk
you say that you cant legally put a bigger battery (as in AH)on a 250wer. ive not heard this before, given it changes nothing but range, it seems odd. I see 10-12ah batteries on commercial legal bikes commonly so whats the limit? where did you find out about that info?
cheers
k

 

[ridethelightning]

+1
i am not aware of any voltage or capacity limit in the Australlian guidelines.

only for top speed and power output at the wheel.

there is a loophole for the power output, that with the cont 250w, there is allowence for peak power for climbing hills etc with UNSPECIFIED WATTAGE

 

[cj7hawk]

+1
i am not aware of any voltage or capacity limit in the Australlian guidelines.

only for top speed and power output at the wheel.

there is a loophole for the power output, that with the cont 250w, there is allowence for peak power for climbing hills etc with UNSPECIFIED WATTAGE

There's no loophole, except that in some states, any "peak power" may also now apply to 200W bicycles, and that's about it -

The issue is one of law, and could be considered as an unintended consequence. To use 250W, the bicycle must be an EN15194 compliant EPAC. If you read the standard, then it provides the information about the battery that must also be compliant. This causes a few small issues in that you need to install temperature sensors and stuff around batteries, and a few major ones in that you need to do destructive testing with a battery such as shorting the terminals and confirming no flame is emitted and stuff like this, as well as the massive RF testing requirements which could cost tens of thousands of dollars. As the bicycle must be tested to each and every battery change as a part of the standard, this means you can't do anything to any of the internal electronics within an EPAC system without re-testing the entire bicycle and getting a new certificate of compliance -

Given the massive expense of this, manufacturers only test 1 to 2 batteries with their bicycle, and only those batteries as made and tested by the manufacturer are compliant... So it's not the capacity that's critical and some voltages are not acceptable, but that's another matter entirely - It's simply that to be EN15194 compliant, you must use the manufacturers tested and certificated battery. And manufacturer batteries are pretty small.

Because it's too expensive to re-do certification yourself ( as an individual within Australia ) this pretty much means that to be compliant with the law, aftermarket batteries cannot be used, as the are no longer compliant. *this* very specifically is the problem.

As a result, only 200W bicycles can be made at home without the crazy testing regime requirements. Any change or modification to a 250W bicycle immediately renders it non-compliant with EN15194 - Except for a factory designed upgrade that was tested with the original EPAC components of the bicycle, and is labelled accordingly.

To better understand this, get a copy of EN15194 - There are some online ones that are available - It's all about testing. Some of the tests are crazy and are best described as deliberately to stop people doing things like upgrading their batteries.

Also, the riding conditions in Europe are pretty different, so they don't need anything other than stock small batteries there, and they extend range by reducing power - This is why some claim ridiculous ranges of 80km - because most of that range is human powered. The bike just "contributes". Many cyclists like this because they see running under full power as cheating.

Now, as I mentioned, I have a generator that is compliant with both standards - including EN15194. There is an exception for chargers that lets you include an external source of power if you meet certain other standards. If you use batteries or a generator as the external source, and they can be removed without tools ( including any fitting frames, etc ) then you don't need to re-test and re-certify the entire bicycle again - It's not intended to be used while the bikes operating, but then again, it's not excluded either. THIS is a useful loophole, but using batteries like this would be difficult due to the fact that you'd have to modify the external pack as a battery charger. So it's not impossible, but loses efficiency and is impractical. On the other hand, it's perfect for a 4kg microgenerator because that *is* a battery charger - it's just small and powerful enough to keep running while you're riding.

Or, as I pointed out, no one is really going to notice whether or not your bicycle is compliant most of the time... So choosing to comply or otherwise is your choice. But if you do want to comply, then 200W is actually the better choice - It offers more speed and more range, even if less torque. But I handle steep hills pretty well with the assistance - Even a 200W motor pulls pretty hard at around 10kph up a steep hill if you are pedalling. Not to mention mid-drive is still an option.

But, if you do choose to comply, EN15194 is a problem. So there's no future for home-built or even business-built 250W bikes in Australia - though even some local manufacturers are ignoring the law on this... Not that this will surprise anyone.

Regards
David

p.s. Just to mention - using a non-compliant bicycle would be a problem if you hit a pedestrian and they sued you - since any bicycle insurance would not cover a non-compliant bicycle. This is one reason why I went so far to ensure compliance on my hybrid.

 

[Chris Sutton]

Here in the E.U we are similarly 'afflicted' with a 250w / 25kph limit. How Australia can set an even lower max. power with a lower population density frankly is beyond me.

250w sounds reasonable until you consider - what about when you come to a hill ??? What about people with bad knees, people with disabilities, senior citizens ?? 250w is inadequate for all but the very gentlest hills and pedelecs are not suitable for everyone.

The law should be changed to eliminate the frankly irrelevant power limitation and make it one simple single limiting rule - bikes have a max. capability of 20mph (32kph), uphill, downhill and on the flat. Traditional racing bikes are easily capable of that anyway, - so are the bureaucrats suggesting that they would be safe but 20mph E-ikes unsafe ??

Obviously the current law was drawn up by overweight Mercedes driving E.U bureaucrats who haven't been on any kind of bicycle since they were 12 years old.

How would it work ? The motor would sense the increased load (Hill) and the motor controller (not the rider's throttle) supply more power. If 20mph is reached the power is automatically reduced slightly. Like a cruise control. The maximum power capability of the motor is therefore far less relevant. Downhill the speed sensor could automatically apply the brakes to limit the bike to 20mph. No one goes too fast, the politicians are satisfied and neither has anyone to puff and pant climbing hills.

 

[cj7hawk]

Here in the E.U we are similarly 'afflicted' with a 250w / 25kph limit. How Australia can set an even lower max. power with a lower population density frankly is beyond me.

250w sounds reasonable until you consider - what about when you come to a hill ??? What about people with bad knees, people with disabilities, senior citizens ?? 250w is inadequate for all but the very gentlest hills and pedelecs are not suitable for everyone.

The law should be changed to eliminate the frankly irrelevant power limitation and make it one simple single limiting rule - bikes have a max. capability of 20mph (32kph), uphill, downhill and on the flat. Traditional racing bikes are easily capable of that anyway, - so are the bureaucrats suggesting that they would be safe but 20mph E-ikes unsafe ??

Obviously the current law was drawn up by overweight Mercedes driving E.U bureaucrats who haven't been on any kind of bicycle since they were 12 years old.

How would it work ? The motor would sense the increased load (Hill) and the motor controller (not the rider's throttle) supply more power. If 20mph is reached the power is automatically reduced slightly. Like a cruise control. The maximum power capability of the motor is therefore far less relevant. Downhill the speed sensor could automatically apply the brakes to limit the bike to 20mph. No one goes too fast, the politicians are satisfied and neither has anyone to puff and pant climbing hills.

That's exactly what they are suggesting. That speeds of anything faster than 19kph are "dangerous".

Anyway, you don't need to sense power or load - if you're going to a speed limit, all you need to sense is speed. Adjust power according to speed. That's exactly how current pedelecs do it. Most electrics also brake once to get too far over the throttle speed.

Regards
David

 

[Cowardlyduck]

Most electrics also brake once to get too far over the throttle speed.

Bahahahahaha.
cj7hawk, most of what your saying is utter rubbish, but this just takes the cake. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have to ask, how many legal or just claiming legal electric bikes have you actually ridden?

Cheers

 

[cj7hawk]

Most electrics also brake once to get too far over the throttle speed.

Bahahahahaha.
cj7hawk, most of what your saying is utter rubbish, but this just takes the cake. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have to ask, how many legal or just claiming legal electric bikes have you actually ridden?

Cheers

What do you think happens with a direct-drive hub motor and the back-emf once the wheel is producing a higher voltage than the battery system that is running it?

I switch my controller on without the boost on steep downhills to limit my top speed for that very reason.... It's quite a noticeable drag.

Not to mention, some brushless controllers have active braking so that they will slow even further, shorting out the motor through PWM into a resistive load.

The bicycle I use for my research was technically evaluated by the Department of Transport. I'm pretty confident it's legal.

Regards
David

 

[Cowardlyduck]

Yes we all know about back emf drag, and yes it can have a noticeable effect, but no it is not 'braking'. You also completely ignored the fact that most store bought low power E-Bikes these day's use freewheeling geared hub motors none of which will brake over 25kph.

cj7hawk, keep talking, your just reinforcing your visible demonstration of ignorance. I'm not going to get dragged into a debate over this as it's clear you will try and win by volume of text as I've seen you try before.
Many here have gained respect by proving their points concisely. It's a skill I would recommend learning.

Adios amigo.

 

[Sunder]

it's clear you will try and win by volume of text as I've seen you try before.

Haha, why does that sound so familiar?

 

[whatever]

There are a few issues with some of user: cj7hawks' comments.

He says that EN15194 is readily available online: if anyone or he could provide a link that works ( in english!) I would be surprised. It used to be available but now all sites I can find want money to get it. There is one site giving it in german, but I cannot find any in english ( I would put a copy of it up but my copy is on my old hardrive, I will dig it out and post the reg one day when I get round to it).

2. cj7hawk is saying there is no maximum current limit. I think is something that is a grey area, the reason being, in EN15194
they have given a road test that can be done to see if a bike complies with the regulation. The road test is a given distance travelled in a given time with max acceleration. If you have no amp limit you will not comply to the road test, you will travel the distance quicker than allowable for a 250watt continous bike. So that means there must be an amp limit.

3. cj7hawk states

any "peak power" may also now apply to 200W bicycles

The 200watt law has been around for a long time, it is given in terms of peak( max) power, so the old rule states
200watt PEAK power!! It has always been in terms of peak power ( the old rule that is), it equates to approx 130watts
continous power. If the regulators wanted to make things make more sense, they would say, the old rule is 130watt continous, and the new rule is 250watts continous. The old rule is given as peak power, the new rule is given as continous power.........the earlier rule the regulators really had no idea whatsoever about motors power levels, and I'm guessing didn't even understand the difference between peak and continous power.

4. In order to convert peak power to continuous ( in a rigorous manner) or vis versa you need to take into account temperature dissipation of the motor and the max temperature the windings can withstand. So my previous post about temperature calculations in electric motors is quite relevant if you want to get a good understanding of what the regulations mean. Especially if you land up with some police or legal problems, which looking at the past, has been a big issue for some ebikers, not forgetting that an Australian retailer of ebikes was taken to the supreme court by the nsw police dept, and
eventually put out of business by that court case.

 

[cj7hawk]

There are a few issues with some of user: cj7hawks' comments.

He says that EN15194 is readily available online: if anyone or he could provide a link that works ( in english!) I would be surprised. It used to be available but now all sites I can find want money to get it. There is one site giving it in german, but I cannot find any in english ( I would put a copy of it up but my copy is on my old hardrive, I will dig it out and post the reg one day when I get round to it).

You only need to ask... There are German ones in English as well. It's a draft, but having seen the two prior versions ( and purchased one ) I can tell you it contains all the same information with respect to what we are talking about - Nothing was watered down in the new standard - in fact, it's a lot worse as far as compliance goes because it's even harder now in mechanical areas - but the electrical stuff is the same.

https://www.raivereniging.nl/ecm/?id=workspace://SpacesStore/fb1037d6-6775-4eed-90f1-ff0a4577d2d5

2. cj7hawk is saying there is no maximum current limit. I think is something that is a grey area, the reason being, in EN15194
they have given a road test that can be done to see if a bike complies with the regulation. The road test is a given distance travelled in a given time with max acceleration. If you have no amp limit you will not comply to the road test, you will travel the distance quicker than allowable for a 250watt continous bike. So that means there must be an amp limit.

There's definitely no amp limit - just a power limit at the wheel. There are two ways to measure this, and which you choose is up to the manufacturer. Keep in mind that power must drop off completely before it hits 25 kph, so there's a limit to how fast you will go anyway... Anyway, read the standard - it's in there.

3. cj7hawk states

any "peak power" may also now apply to 200W bicycles

The 200watt law has been around for a long time, it is given in terms of peak( max) power, so the old rule states
200watt PEAK power!! It has always been in terms of peak power ( the old rule that is), it equates to approx 130watts
continous power. If the regulators wanted to make things make more sense, they would say, the old rule is 130watt continous, and the new rule is 250watts continous. The old rule is given as peak power, the new rule is given as continous power.........the earlier rule the regulators really had no idea whatsoever about motors power levels, and I'm guessing didn't even understand the difference between peak and continous power.

There was never any rule about 130w. It was just a concept that to avoid going over 200W maximum, you needed to pick up a cycle that could not go over 130w max continuous. Ironically, it's pretty close to how I engineered my bike - though I still get 200W through additional circuitry and can fine tune it - because the only law is about 200w at the wheel. Seriously, technology is a lot more advanced now. I use a 500W rated hub motor, and I still comply with the law, because I derated it to 125W. This is not my opinion here - it was confirmed by the WA Department of Transport - They do have the final authority in this matter. As such, it would also have weight in other states. As for my assertion - well, peak power was never defined for 200W - just max. However the way that EN15194 was implemented, either EN15194 bikes are still illegal ( Peak Power 250W ) or 200W bikes can have higher peak. It's just the wording of the law - Again, advice from the DoT. They are not sure which way this decision will fall, but it's worth keeping in mind.

4. In order to convert peak power to continuous ( in a rigorous manner) or vis versa you need to take into account temperature dissipation of the motor and the max temperature the windings can withstand. So my previous post about temperature calculations in electric motors is quite relevant if you want to get a good understanding of what the regulations mean. Especially if you land up with some police or legal problems, which looking at the past, has been a big issue for some ebikers, not forgetting that an Australian retailer of ebikes was taken to the supreme court by the nsw police dept, and
eventually put out of business by that court case.

Yes, your comments were very good and well made - But may not necessarily be accurate based on current EN15194 laws - It really does look like the "Max Power" is more something arbitrary now - Anyway, that's still opinion - The Max speed of 25 kph and the requirement to drop off mean most Pedelecs will no go faster than about 20 kph under their own power - regardless of how much power you really have to spare.

Anyway, it's complicated, but some on this forum don't like long posts, so to be nice, I'll try to keep mine shorter -

David

 

[Raged]

Youve never been hit before.... Helmets save lives. I'd have brain damage and a large portion of my scalp across the road if I didnt have a helmet.

I was T-boned by a car on a bicycle. A bike helmet saved my life and could be proven to have done so. But even so, I agree that MHL increases ( not decreases ) rider risk level and the helmets that are mandated are just dangerous.

I pick and choose my bicycle helmets very carefully, and technically, the ones I do choose are illegal, but I would not wear a legal helmet on a bicycle because they are dangerous. Mandatory helmet law helmets also lead to deaths where there would be no death if the helmet was not involved. They are a good example of best-intentions leading to a worse outcome due to the demonstrably poor knowledge of cycling by those who made the decision in the first place, based only on experience with impact-related injuries sustained while cycling. Even neurosurgeons are split on the topic of whether they do more good or harm.

So your argument for *not* wearing a helmet is that it *safer* because drivers who *see* you will take extra care in avoiding you? Dude... Seriously?

 

[cj7hawk]

Youve never been hit before.... Helmets save lives. I'd have brain damage and a large portion of my scalp across the road if I didnt have a helmet.

I was T-boned by a car on a bicycle. A bike helmet saved my life and could be proven to have done so. But even so, I agree that MHL increases ( not decreases ) rider risk level and the helmets that are mandated are just dangerous.

I pick and choose my bicycle helmets very carefully, and technically, the ones I do choose are illegal, but I would not wear a legal helmet on a bicycle because they are dangerous. Mandatory helmet law helmets also lead to deaths where there would be no death if the helmet was not involved. They are a good example of best-intentions leading to a worse outcome due to the demonstrably poor knowledge of cycling by those who made the decision in the first place, based only on experience with impact-related injuries sustained while cycling. Even neurosurgeons are split on the topic of whether they do more good or harm.

So your argument for *not* wearing a helmet is that it *safer* because drivers who *see* you will take extra care in avoiding you? Dude... Seriously?

I don't disagree with helmets. I disagree with mandatory helmet laws and I disagree with the types of helmets such a law introduces.

As mentioned, I not only chose to wear a helmet before MHL ( and still do ) - I just choose to wear a helmet that does not comply with the laws. And I believe most helmets that comply with the laws are not good helmets. But even then, I don't think helmets should be mandatory.

 

[whatever]

to cj7hawk
I disagree with quite alot of your statements in reply to my comments. Dont really want to go around in circles, only thing I will say is regarding the 200watt max( peak) old rule which still applies in conjunction with the new 250watt continous rule:
In the case of the old rule, since there was a supreme court case( nsw supreme court case), there were many experts brought in to determine exactly what the rule meant, the police dept of nsw spent a huge amount of money getting various experts to build machines to test the power limit, and experts to determine exactly what the law meant. They had the resources to do this, and spared no expense hiring academics to work on the case. They went through three different academic research institutes/organisations before they had actually a hard and fast understanding of exactly what the rule meant and how to test it.
Because of this it was determined that 200watt maximum was the equivalent of 130watts continuous power for common ebike motors ( the brand in question was actually a 48v luyuan moped brand hub motor).
I can only imagine how much money was wasted on that court case. So if your an ebike retailer you need to be very familiar with the ebike laws or the same thing could happen again.
It is interesting that in the end it came down to the judges opinion or lets say ruling on what constituted a legal ebike in
Australia.

Basically at that time it came down to if it looks like a moped and not like a pushbike then its illegal, and also the pedals should be the prime means of power, the motor should just be an assistant to pedalling.

The next huge waste of money was regarding the taking up of the EU regulations. So it took the authorities 15 or more years to decide the best thing to do is to do nothing: just copy the eu regulations..........what a job......spend 15 or more years developing new ebike laws and in the end just copy EU regulations, I thought plagarism and copying others work was taught to everyone in highschool as being unacceptable and illegal!
So now the public dont even have free access to the new regulations, go to the RTA ( nsw) and ask for a copy of the regulations.............you wont get a copy, they wont even know what your talking about.

 

[Raged]

I don't disagree with helmets. I disagree with mandatory helmet laws and I disagree with the types of helmets such a law introduces.

As mentioned, I not only chose to wear a helmet before MHL ( and still do ) - I just choose to wear a helmet that does not comply with the laws. And I believe most helmets that comply with the laws are not good helmets. But even then, I don't think helmets should be mandatory.

The best helmet is a full face motorcycle helmet that protects the front of the face as well as the top and back. Unfortunately they're dammn hot in summer and heavy, which causes a couple more issues if you stack (read about effects of weight on motorcycle accidents). When I was riding crotch rockets, I used an Arai Vector 2 (carbon fibre reinforced) which was light at about 1kg but still quite heavy compared to a pedal bike helmet. At normal bike speeds, you're not normally in a position to faceplant and scrape your chin along the ground for that long. Instincts mean you use your hands to protect your face, so the standard bike helmet (say Giro Revel) is perfectly fine to protect the back and sides of the head which you cant physically protect yourself. Any protection is better than no protection in the case of an accident (you never know when it's gonna happen).

Helmets are designed to crack on impact. It's the force that it absorbs cracking that doesnt transfer to your skull and gooey brain.

 

[cj7hawk]

to cj7hawk
I disagree with quite alot of your statements in reply to my comments. Dont really want to go around in circles, only thing I will say is regarding the 200watt max( peak) old rule which still applies in conjunction with the new 250watt continous rule:
In the case of the old rule, since there was a supreme court case( nsw supreme court case), there were many experts brought in to determine exactly what the rule meant, the police dept of nsw spent a huge amount of money getting various experts to build machines to test the power limit, and experts to determine exactly what the law meant. They had the resources to do this, and spared no expense hiring academics to work on the case. They went through three different academic research institutes/organisations before they had actually a hard and fast understanding of exactly what the rule meant and how to test it.
Because of this it was determined that 200watt maximum was the equivalent of 130watts continuous power for common ebike motors ( the brand in question was actually a 48v luyuan moped brand hub motor).
I can only imagine how much money was wasted on that court case. So if your an ebike retailer you need to be very familiar with the ebike laws or the same thing could happen again.
It is interesting that in the end it came down to the judges opinion or lets say ruling on what constituted a legal ebike in
Australia.

Basically at that time it came down to if it looks like a moped and not like a pushbike then its illegal, and also the pedals should be the prime means of power, the motor should just be an assistant to pedalling.

Even if a 130w continuous motor would peak at 200w, this isn't a rule or anything - it's just the analysis from a single engine. A 130w motor does about 18-19 kph typical. And the conclusion sounds pretty reasonable to me, at least for some motors. But it is possible to make a motor that puts out 200w continuous, even offsetting back-emf to achieve this. That makes for a very fast electric bicycle - capable of good speed with a tailwind.

Also, the court decision was slightly different - It's amazing how much misinformation exists about this case - The actual decision is best summarised as "If you put pedals on a motorbike, it's still a motorbike. If you put a sub-200W engine on a push bike, it's a power assisted pedal cycle." You can read about it and the appeal subsequent if you like - ( Matheson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2008] NSWSC 550 )

I'm pretty sure this is the reason for that confusion: http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/Paper%20155%20-%20Leavy%20-%20Cyclists.pdf - probably because he ignored the appeal. Or maybe the appeal came out after that.

The appeal quite rightfully pointed out - ( quoted from the appeal )
35 It was submitted that the learned Magistrate has misdirected himself by having regard to the manner and extent of use (electric power versus pedal power) of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. To base a conclusion on this consideration, it was submitted, involved an uncertain process which may produce different answers depending upon the manner and extent of use of particular owners and riders. Such an approach, it was submitted, would not be a sensible one for implementation of a scheme for vehicle registration that required consistency and certainty.

However, although this assertion is correct, the appeal was not successful, as it was obviously a motorscooter which had pedals attached for the purpose of trying to get through the loophole, so it didn't actually matter whether it was pedaled or not. Primary source of power is a design characteristic - Not an operational characteristic. This is the main reason the appeal failed. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that was an overpowered scooter too, but I think they should have allowed it - well that was their decision to make. So anyone who makes a homebuilt PAPC should at least start with a normal bicycle.

The next huge waste of money was regarding the taking up of the EU regulations. So it took the authorities 15 or more years to decide the best thing to do is to do nothing: just copy the eu regulations..........what a job......spend 15 or more years developing new ebike laws and in the end just copy EU regulations, I thought plagarism and copying others work was taught to everyone in highschool as being unacceptable and illegal!
So now the public dont even have free access to the new regulations, go to the RTA ( nsw) and ask for a copy of the regulations.............you wont get a copy, they wont even know what your talking about.

Agreed... It was stupid solution, but as I said, the only desire was to justify reselling European bikes in Australia, so the laws did exactly what they wanted. There never was any intent for those bikes to be built here. So we're stuck with 200w for homebuilt purposes.

Though for what it's worth, I'd take 200W MAX over the EN15194 standard - Hope the new standard I posted a link to is helpful for you - look how crazy it's gone now !

Regards
David

 

[cj7hawk]

Helmets are designed to crack on impact. It's the force that it absorbs cracking that doesnt transfer to your skull and gooey brain.

Actually, that's not correct. If it cracks, it usually means that it hasn't absorbed much energy at all and will not absorb any further energy - What you want in a good helmet is for it to deform but not break. That's what leads to absorbing the impact.

Regards
David

 

[thewmatusmoloki]

Correct.

 

[whatever]

interesting info cj7hawk, dont think I heard about an appeal to that nsw supreme court case, no knowledge on that.
I've had a brief look at the paper you linked. Interesting they are claiming that by there own independent research they came
up with the ideas of a 25km/hr speed limit, that motor power cut out at 25km/hr and that low speed startup under 6km/hr be available ( not sure what that means) were all arrived at independently and just happened to 'align' with the EU standard..mmmm....quite a coincidence.......or bull***t! lol
It does seem a shame that the potential for ebikes is once again being held back by beuracrats ( however you spell it), I can see from their point of view safety is a concern, but the rules are quite restrictive, from a long term ebikers point of view, they are unnecessarily restrictive. There is an area where ebikes excel: up to approx 40km/hr, an 48v 20amp motor will do approx 40km/hr max on flat surface, that is ideal speed, not as fast as cars but faster than normal pushbikes.........thats where the rule makers let us down, there was the opportunity to fit ebikes into their own niche.......where they belong......but alas they lacked forsight.

 

[bandaro]

Hey guys,

I was wondering if anybody either knew or could direct me to any laws regarding electric skateboards?

I know that regular skateboards fall under a 'wheeled recreational vehicle' ie pedestrian, and think that segways and the like also fall into this category, and just wondering if any of you guys know this and can link me to it somewhere please?

 

[Sunder]

In NSW, they're banned:

See prohibited vehicles section.

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/registration/unregistered.html

What irks me is that in trying to find that page, I came across sites that sell the skateboard as fully legal. One even had the gall to have in their FAQ "What happens if I get a fine" and their answer was "Pay it and move on".

The world doesn't work like that chummer. If it's legal, you wouldn't get fined. They know full well they're selling illegal skateboards, but they're betting not enough people complain to get them in trouble. The reason the answer to the FAQ wasn't "Challenge it" is because if someone did say "so and so shop says on its website that this skateboard is legal", they'd be shut down faster than you could say "Website has been removed".

 

[cj7hawk]

Sad about the sites that sell them - They really do seem to be misleading people.

http://www.rego.act.gov.au/registration/registering-vehicle-other-than-a-standard-car-or-light-truck/motorised-devices

This pretty much covers most motorized vehicles, including skateboards.

Regards
David

 

[bandaro]

Thanks guys appreciated! Bit of a downer that they are banned completely in what appears to be everywhere, but what else to expect from this backwards country. Might have to move to America instead..


Regarding the "pay and move on", I read the same comment and it was in relation to standard skateboards. Saying where and why they were legal, not legal, the general run down, and if you did get a fine be polite, pay and move on. Yes, they sold electric boards there too but didn't mention anything about them on the page, looked as if they had copy pasted it from the ASRA page (which is specifically not electric). At least, that was on the epic page that I have read...