Cycling made easier in European Union

An article by John Attard entitled The Two-Wheel Experience, Pros And Cons (Paqpaq, November 7), does not make it clear at the outset what sort of “motorised” bicycles his article is all about.

Reading the text suggests that the article is specifically about standard bicycles with custom-fitted petrol engines. But there are glaring inaccuracies in the article, making it grossly misleading and unfair.

Firstly, the picture that accompanies the article is clearly an electric bicycle and not a petrol-driven bicycle.

Secondly Mr Attard’s article makes selective reference to an article from EU 2009/103/EC for his definition of a “motor vehicle”. This directive would seem to include every possible form of mechanically assisted bicycle when this is not the case. Directive 2002/24/EC specifically excludes electric bicycles of 250 Watts rated output (or less) from classification as a “motor vehicle”.

Thus the EU places no restrictions whatsoever on any electric bicycle as defined by the word “pedelec”. These are activated by pedalling and not by a throttle or switch. There is a cut-off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 km/h. Such bicycles are regarded as “normal” bicycles for a number of reasons.

Unlike bicycles fitted with petrol engines, electrically assisted bicycles are incapable of high speeds; in fact one can pedal faster on the level than the electric motor will drive it. Electric bicycles which conform to the EU definition of “pedelec” (which is the vast majority of such bicycles) handle exactly like normal bicycles because the motor provides only slight traction; one has to pedal just the same and the physical exercise aspect is retained. The main advantage of pedelecs is therefore not on the level but when climbing hills; this is when the electric drive is most useful. In effect all an electric driven bicycle does is to shave off 15 to 25 per cent of time needed for a journey; this is mostly achieved through not slowing down when climbing hills in low gear.

The EU treats electric bicycles as normal bicycles in order to encourage cycle use for obvious environmental reasons. The EU wants to encourage electric bicycle use alongside normal bicycles both as a form of environmentally clean mobility and as a means of relieving traffic congestion. Electric bicycles are undergoing rapid development and are destined to become a popular means of transport. They have an important potential to make a significant contribution to clean, healthy mobility. Such bicycles are suited for the hilly conditions in Malta.

As the rules now stand in Malta, restrictions in LN 129 2004 seem to apply to all “power-assisted bicycles”. It is unclear whether the rule distinguishes between electric-driven bicycles and petrol-driven bicycles or if the exception in Directive 2002/24/EC applies. If enforced as such, this could hinder acceptance of the electric bicycle which has a great future potential as an attractive alternative to a car for short trips or commuting to work.

This is of special significance when one considers how traffic congestion is increasing in Malta.

While there is no dispute that the safety (mostly for the rider) and legal status of petrol-driven bicycles should receive attention, there must be some kind of balance. The European Commission, in its communication entitled A Sustainable Future For Transport: Towards An Integrated, Technology-Led And User-Friendly System, emphasises that accident figures are still too high among two-wheel mobility users and pedestrians, which are the most vulnerable user groups, and calls for greater consideration to be given to infrastructure measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists by road planners.

In this context Mr Attard’s article is far too one-sided; typically the author seems more worried about slight damage to a car from a cyclist than the severe injuries sustained by the vulnerable cyclist. It is worth remembering that cars are much faster, heavier and infinitely more lethal than a human being on a bike – or a pedestrian.