The European Parliament is about to vote the review of the type-approval. In a dramatic appeal to all MEP’s, ETRA urges them not to vote article 2.2(g) of the compromise text. According to ETRA, this article is an open invitation for electric bicycle manufacturers to circumvent the type-approval procedure. ETRA issues a stark warning that article 2.2(g) will produce serious safety risks and put lives at risk.
The European Parliament and Council have reached a compromise on the Proposal for Regulation on the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles. This compromise still needs to be formally debated and voted in Plenary. That is scheduled for Monday 19 and Tuesday 20 November.
In the run-up to the Plenary session, ETRA has made a dramatic appeal to all Members of the European Parliament not to vote article 2.2(g) of the proposal. That article stipulates that the Regulation does not apply to vehicles primarily intended for off-road use and designed to travel on unpaved surfaces.
According to ETRA, this article is a permit for manufacturers of electric bicycles to circumvent type-approval and to put vehicles on the market with optimum functional danger levels rather than safety levels. ETRA also calls the article a permit for manufacturers to put vehicles on the market for irresponsible consumers who are only interested in speed and power output.
ETRA Secretary General Annick Roetynck further explains: “Manufacturers can very easily declare their electric bicycles vehicles primarily intended for off-road use and designed to travel on unpaved surfaces, since there are no criteria whatsoever set for labelling a vehicle as such.” Designed to travel on unpaved surfaces has in this context no meaning whatsoever because even if they are designed for that purpose, there is no rule against use on public roads. For comparison, many a mountain bike is used on public roads though it is primarily intended for off-road use and designed to travel on unpaved surfaces.
Annick Roetynck continues: “If a manufacturer labels his electric bicycle as a vehicle primarily intended for off road use and designed to travel on unpaved surfaces then the vehicle is out of the type-approval and there are no other technical rules applying. There is only the General Product Safety Directive which obliges the manufacturer to put a safe product on the market. Furthermore, the owner of the above vehicle will be allowed to use the vehicle without any other obligations, i.e. helmet, insurance, driving licence, age limit, … There is no speed limit by construction set for his vehicle, nor a motor output limit.”
ETRA finds it very difficult to see the consistency in Commission, Council and Parliament’s position with reference to electric bicycles in this legislative dossier. One of ETRA’s requests to the European authorities was to exclude pedal assisted electric bicycles with assistance up to 25 km/h from the type-approval, irrespective of their motor output level. The motor output has no effect on the speed since the motor automatically stops at 25 km/h, irrespective of that motor output. IMCO adopted the relevant amendment but it was subsequently deleted in the trialogue negotiations because Commission and Council feared the amendment would create a safety risk. In parallel, with article 2.2(g) Commission and Council proposed to exclude a category of vehicles, including electric bicycles, without any specification of speed and motor output limit!
ETRA is unequivocal about article 2.2(g): absolutely inconsistent, dangerous and irresponsible.
Warnings for this same article were issued by the motorcycle community. As a result, enduro, trial and heavy duty quads were explicitly re-included in the compromise text.
ETRA has been warning Commission, Council and Parliament about the fact that this article will be abused to avoid the type-approval procedure for electric bicycles since 2009 and has proposed an amendment to overcome the problem, but that was eventually totally ignored.
According to ETRA it is very likely that manufacturers of electric bicycles will use the way out of type-approval offered to them by article 2.2(g) because type-approval is an extremely complicated, expensive and inappropriate regulation since it is designed for conventional mopeds and motorcycles, not for electric bicycles.
The Commission and Council have systematically ignored ETRA’s proposals aimed at developing appropriate and effective regulations for electric bicycles. Originally, the IMCO Committee agreed with ETRA’s proposals and included them through the necessary amendments in the van de Camp report. However all these amendments were deleted again from the compromise text agreed between Council, Commission and Parliament, the text to be discussed and voted in the next Plenary Session.
In a reaction on this compromise to Rapporteur van de Camp, his Shadow Rapporteurs and to the IMCO coordinators ETRA stated: “We are disillusioned beyond words to find that all amendments for the benefit of electric bicycles have been deleted from the compromise text. This is no less than dramatic for the electric bicycle sector in the European Union, since it means that a type-approval procedure, which is totally inappropriate and ineffective for electric bicycles, will continue to apply for at least another decade! This will very seriously obstruct the development of the European electric bicycle market.”
ETRA was informally told that the amendments for the benefit of electric bicycles were sacrificed for the sake of reaching a compromise. Commission and Council continued to oppose the amendments because they had concerns about the resulting safety aspects. ETRA’s response to this: “We deeply regret that Council, Commission and Parliament have refused to accept our in-depth and repeated clarifications and reassurances on this issue. Instead, the incorrect, unfounded and inflammatory argumentation of the opponents to our proposals has prevailed. Ironically enough, the compromise text turns out no less than dramatic for the electric bicycle business because with article 2.2(g) it will without any doubt produce very serious safety risks. The fact that none of the opponents to our proposals have taken this risk into consideration nor acted upon, proves in our view their lack of understanding of the whole type-approval issue with reference to electric bicycles.”
ETRA firmly believes that precisely the fact that the future type-approval procedure is not appropriate and effective for electric bicycles creates the risk that manufacturers will avoid the procedure on the basis of Article 2.2(g).
It is still possible to table amendments before Plenary, provided these amendments are supported by at least thirty MEPs or one political group. That is why ETRA has formulated two amendments aimed at remedying the problems resulting from the compromise text for electric bicycles. All MEPs have been urged to support the amendments.
The new type-approval procedure for electric bicycles will have to be implemented before the end of 2016. This leaves ETRA with 4 more years to obtain better regulations for electric bicycles should this ultimate effort before the vote in Plenary fail.
