The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, publisher of the global supply chain pressure index (GSCPI), has revealed the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in its latest release.
The invasion added additional pressure to a global network that was already under strain. Pressure is now at an all-time high since the index’s creation in 1997. The scenario continues to develop as trade and payments with Russia and Belarus rapidly decrease in line with Western bank sanctions. This turn of events is a stark contrast to early 2022 predictions that pressure was beginning to equalise following Covid-19 disruption.
The GSCPI summarises 27 variables that impact global supply chain functioning, including measures such as cross-border and manufacturing costs. A score of 0 indicates that pressure is at an average level, and any positive increase indicates how many standard deviations the index is above average value, and vice versa. The value currently stands at 4.
In the LEV industry, where a product as a whole may be completely dependent on specific, independently sourced parts, this pressure increase could force some manufacturing to a standstill. As the global scenario continues its progression, the impact on the supply chain will be closely observed by many.
The newly published industry association RAI market research report shows only 923,000 bicycles and e-bikes sold in the Netherlands during 2021. In comparison, the 2020 figure stood at 1,098,000, equating to a 15.9% market shrink in 2021. This drop is attributed to current supply chain issues having a direct impact on product availability, triggering the record high drop in sales volume.
New paper provides comprehensive insight for the state of LEVs in the Netherlands
Countrywide, municipalities in the Netherlands are working to reduce car use in their cities. Ongoing challenges including climate change and city center densification have pushed policymakers to consider options with which to transform the way we fill our urban spaces, and how we move around these spaces. This white paper examines the state of play of a new category of vehicles that can play an important driving role in the mobility transition: light electric vehicles, or LEVs for short. What do we already know, and what is still unclear? What about sustainability, or regulations? Are partial concepts also commercially interesting? And how do LEVs add to the fun of being on the road?
Challenges of LEV transition are considered in three themes: business and service; people and technology; and policy and mobility. These broad categories are explored and connected through research, fact, and experiences collected within the LEV knowledge center. The final paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of affairs regarding micromobility, from which further developments can be understood and steered.
A ‘pandemic bike boom’ has catapulted the German and wider European cargo-bike market towards an estimated growth of 40-50% in 2021
As European cities continue to grow in size and density, road space has become increasingly scarce. In tandem, online shopping has become the new norm, so it is unsurprising that in locations such as the UK, van traffic has seen a 71% increase over the last 20 years; for comparison, car traffic saw a 13% growth in the same period. More vans equate to more congestion, more pollution, and slower delivery times. In Germany, the cargo-bike is powering onto the scene with such ferocity that leading magazine Bike Europe stated that the bikes have quickly “[changed] the look of streets” in many cities.
Six years ago, in 2016, annual German cargo-bike sales stood at 15,000, in 2020 sales reached 100,000; today, the pandemic induced ‘bike boom’ has led to manufacturers estimating they experienced growth of 40-50% in 2021. When discussing modern city planning Walther Ploos van Amstel, a professor of city logistics at Amsterdam University, argues that “trucks… need to become smarter, cleaner, quieter, smaller and safer.” to remain viable – electric cargo-bikes already fulfill all of these criteria.
This spike in interest correlates to businesses begining to identify the range of benefits that electric cargo-bikes may bring to their operations in urban areas. In many cities, trips made by cargo-bikes are often more efficient during both travel and delivery procedure (parking, unloading, etc.). Consequently, policymakers are further accelerating the electric cargo-bike trend on a local and national scale, offering subsidies, trial schemes, and rebates. Cargo-bikes make up a crucial step in the marathon that is transforming European cities into climate-neutral locations.
Comments Off on 2021 E-Bike sales blossomed in the NL, B & D
Source: GFK & Nieuwsfiets – Figures from the annual GfK E-bike Monitor 2021 show that Dutch consumers were more likely to buy an e-bike to cycle to work. Recreational use was still the largest segment but compared to 2020 there was a clear increase in use for commuting.
This increase is partly explained by the fact that in 2021 the Corona measures were somewhat relaxed compared to the year before. As a result, last year more people went back to the office and the e-bike was considered a good alternative for commuting. With that the consumer’s motivation for buying an e-bike is to be able to travel longer distances. On average, Dutch e-bikers cycle about 43 kilometres per week. As for the age of the riders, the number of e-bike buyers between 35 and 49 years increased significantly in 2021.
Rise in average price also in Belgium and Germany
Last year, Dutch consumers have bought more expensive e-bikes. Average price rose by 4% from € 2,191 to € 2,283. GfK has found that in Belgium and Germany, the average price has risen even faster than in the Netherlands. In Belgium, the increase in 2021 was over 8% compared to 2020, from € 2,031 to € 2,197. Germany showed the largest increase of more than 12%, from € 1,904 to € 2,140. In other words, in both countries, e-bike buyers have started to buy more premium electric bikes. E-bikes from €3000 upwards are also showing a significant increase. At the same time, there is still sufficient potential for cheaper e-bikes as well. E-bikes priced up to €1500 account for over 30% of purchases in both countries. Last remarkable fact which shows that the Dutch e-bike market is slightly more mature than the Belgian and German market: 27% of potential buyers already have an e-bike. In Belgium and Germany, that percentage is significantly lower, respectively 15% and 19%.
Linking insights to actual sales
In 2018, the GfK E-bike Monitor was the first to be launched in the Netherlands. In it, the annual trends about the target group, motivation and purchasing behaviour regarding e-bikes were extensively researched. In addition, GfK can link the insights to actual sales from the GfK Retail data. The questionnaire is updated annually to reflect current events. By means of a sample, respondents were questioned within the target group of current and potential e-bike buyers. The sample in the Netherlands consisted of 2,000 respondents, and in Germany and Belgium of around 1,000 respondents. The research was conducted in October 2021.
CLICK HERE for more information about the GfK E-Bike Monitor
The Rapid Exchange of Information System is the EU rapid alert system for unsafe consumer products and the measures taken by the member states to deal with that safety problem. The Commission publishes a weekly overview of RAPEX notifications. Below you will find notifications relating to light electric vehicles. To consult the full details of a notification on the Commission’s website, just click on the week.
Model: YB-100W-42V2A Risk Type: Electric shock Measures ordered by economic operator (to: Other): Removal of this product listing by the online marketplace.
Model: Modèle 7INR18/65 Risk type: Burns, Fire Measured ordered by public authorities (to: Distributer): Recall of the product from end users. Date of safety gate alert 18/11/2021
Model: EHB206 Risk type: Injuries Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Recall of the product from end users. Date of entry into force 20/09/2021
Model: D1 / HB0012 Risk type: Fire, Burns Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 22/09/2021
Model: KX-FS5.5 Risk type: Injuries Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 08/09/2021
Model: AirMotion H1 (on the packaging) H1-FAJ0293 (on the product) Risk type: Injuries, Burns, Fire Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 14/07/2021
Model: Twizy Risk type: Injuries Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Manufacturer): Recall of the product from end users. Date of entry into force 09/03/2021
Model: 82200823003033 / 5 999565 595050 Risk type: Injuries, Burns, Fire Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 17/08/2021
Model: 165-NJ-V3 8/690 Risk type: Injuries, Burns, Fire Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 15/12/2020
Model: KX-PRO6.5A Risk type: Injuries, Burns, Fire Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Manufacturer): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 28/11/2020
Model: SCK-5300 Black Risk type: Injuries, Burns, Fire Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Manufacturer): Recall of the product from end users. Date of entry into force 06/11/2020
Model: Joy J-200 Risk type: Injuries, Burns, Fire Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Manufacturer): Recall of the product from end users. Date of entry into force 20/11/2020
Model: Brompton Electric Risk type: Injuries Measures ordered by economic operators (to: Manufacturer): Recall of the product from end users. Date of entry into force 07/04/2021
Model: Take it XD 6.5 Risk type: Fire, Injuries Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 07/11/2020
Model: Smart-S Risk type: Fire, Injuries Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Date of entry into force 26/10/2020
Model: Unknown Risk type: Fire, Injuries Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market. Recall of the product from end users. Date of entry into force 07/01/2021
Model: STANDARD E1 Risk type: Electric shock, Fire, Injuries
Water may enter in the product’s charger (charging connector), and the product itself (control electronics) is not resistant to moisture nor correctly insulated against water ingress. This can damage the electric components causing it to overheat and catch fire. It may also short circuit and make accessible parts live, and a user may suffer an electric shock, or fall and be injured due to malfunction. / The product did not comply with the requirements of the Machinery Directive, nor with the European standards EN 60335-1 and 2, and EN 60529.
Measures ordered by public authorities (to: Distributor): Withdrawal of the product from the market.
Comments Off on Debate in Dutch Parliament on LEV-framework: what is the problem?
Last week, the Dutch Minister for Infrastructure and Water, Barbara Visser, entered into a debate with (literally) a handful of MPs on the LEV-Framework. This framework is meant to impose additional requirements, including technical ones, on (e)cargocycles. Another part of the framework sets out conditions for e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles with steering to be approved for use on public roads. The debate left one question, albeit a fundamental one, unanswered: what problem is the Minister trying to solve? None of those few MPs present thought of asking that fundamental question.
The debate on the LEV-framework was just part of a larger discussion on traffic safety. Last year, 610 people perished on Dutch roads. That is almost 8% less than in 2019. However, the largest victim group was the one of the cyclists: 229 victims, which is 26 more than in 2019, and 1 more than in 2018. One third of them were riding an e-bike. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS) does not have any separate statistics for (e)cargocycles. It is therefore impossible to establish whether there these have been involved in more or less accidents. As for e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles, in as far as they are included in the statistics, they could only appear in the category “others and unknown”, in which there were 8 deadly victims last year. Also, the higher number of dead cyclists has not been put into relation with increased number of (e)bikers on the road.
In the debate, both the Minister and the MPs pledged that they would do everything necessary to get the numbers down. And that is where the LEV-framework comes in. The Minister did not bother explaining how the LEV-framework would avoid road victims and the MPs did not bother asking. From there onwards, the debate turned into a textbook example of technocracy at its worst. The Minister repeated once more that the LEV-framework was a response to the report of the Dutch Safety Board after the accident with the Stint in 2018. She wasn’t asked by the MPs why (e)cargocycles, e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles, all very different from the Stint, where chosen to pay the price.
She went really wrong a few times with her explanation about the need for the LEV-framework. For instance, she argued that e-scooters should not be granted the same status in traffic as bikes and e-bikes (25 km/h) due to the lower level of damage bikes and e-bikes cause to third parties. Ek = ½m·v2, anyone?
She also announced the possibility of introducing “alternative means of compliance” next to homologation by RDW (official Dutch testing service) for LEVs in the Netherlands. However, she warned that “there is very little experience in the market with alternative means of compliance“. Thus, she seems to be totally unaware of the fact that legally required compliance with Machinery, EMC and RoHS for LEVs is allowed through this “alternative means of compliance” and used for many millions of LEVs in Europe, including the Netherlands.
She also announced research into the safety risks of (e)cargocycles in city logistics. She said that to date this was a “blind spot” in the knowledge of the Ministry. And yet, throughout the whole debate she argued that the LEV-framework is absolutely essential to ensure road safety. Isn’t it logical to assume that there are already negative road safety facts available to underpin the LEV-framework?
On top of all this, the Minister has simply ignored a number of critical reports. In June 2021, the Antea Group carried out an impact analysis of the LEV framework at the request of the Ministry. The conclusions contained a number of fundamental objections and recommendations for adjustments. The Ministry also requested the HAN LEV Knowledge Centre to assess the draft technical requirements for the new LEV framework. That report, published in June 2021, also contained a lot of (sometimes very) critical comments and remarks. The Ministry has never said a word about either report, and no, the MPs have not asked about it in the debate either.
Finally, there is the verdict of July 2021 in which a judge in The Hague acquits a rider of an electric scooter. He had previously incurred a fine of €380 for using an unapproved e-scooter on a public road. The judge concluded that vehicles should only be approved for road use if they belong to one of the European harmonized vehicle categories L, M, N, O, T, C, R or S. Because it could not be proven that the e- scooter belonged to one of these categories, the judge acquitted the man. The LEV-framework appears to be based on the Ministry’s proposition that not only vehicles in L, M, N, O, T, C, R or S must be approved for on-road admission, but also (e)cargocycles, e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles. The question is then why e-cargocycles are already allowed on public roads without approval and e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles are not. Another question is why in this line of reasoning bicycles and e-bikes should not be approved for on-road approval.
Make no mistake, this is by no means a plea for a specific Dutch on-road approval of bikes, e-bikes nor for (e)cargocycles, e-scooters or self-balancing vehicles. On the contrary, all this is meant to show that the LEV-framework is unfounded, it will not guarantee fewer road deaths and it will undoubtedly have a negative on the sustainability of mobility in the Netherlands. Introducing specific traffic rules for new types of vehicles, fine, but developing a specific Dutch framework aimed at making the vehicles involved “more bicycle-like” is a bridge too far.
Just before the debate, LEVA-EU, the electric mobility association Doet, International Cargo Bike Festival and the user group Legaal Rijden, sent a joint letter to the MPs and to the Minister to confront them once again with the fact that the planned LEV-framework is in breach of European regulations. That proved yet another issue the MPs and the Minister did not want to go into that too deeply. During the debate, the minister casually mentioned that she would submit the Dutch plans to the Commission for approval.
Close contact between consumer and developer maintained through expanded showroom scheme
Building on the existing showrooms in Leuven and at Trans-Fair in Ghent, Ellio will soon invite customers to experience and test its products in West Flounders and at Mobiel in Kortrijk.
Having already expanded outside of its founding location in the Flemish Brabant via sales in independent bike shops, Ellio now aims its sights on allowing riders to buy direct without traveling to the Leuven showroom. Smaller showrooms in collaboration with existing bike shops will allow customers to experience physical products before ordering digitally through Ellio directly, maintaining direct contact between developers and riders.
“As a modern, high-tech company, we strongly believe in the short line between our developers and the Ellio drivers. For that communication, we are strongly committed to a digital sales and service model. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Ellio is a physical product that customers should be able to view and try. The collaboration with Trans-fair and Mobiel allows us to combine both.”
Comments Off on Dutch LEV framework: e-(cargo) bicycles, e-scooters & self-balancing vehicles pay the price
LEVA-EU has consulted with the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water about their planned LEV framework. A week earlier, LEVA-EU had argued extensively in a position that this proposal contravenes European law. The Ministry could not really convince LEVA-EU of the contrary. Worse still, the LEV framework appears to be a response to a report that completely misses the point.
The proposal for the so-called Dutch LEV framework includes specific Dutch technical and usage requirements for e-scooters, self-balancing vehicles with handlebars and e-(cargo) cycles. LEVA-EU contests the additional technical requirements, which have nothing to do with road use. These requirements are in addition to the technical requirements that legally result from the European Machinery, EMC and RoHS Directives. The result will be that manufacturers will have to make specifically Dutch vehicles. LEVA-EU argues that this goes against the Machinery Directive, Directive 2015/1535 and against the principles of the single market and the free movement of goods.
The Dutch Ministry stated that the LEV framework is a direct consequence of the report of the Dutch Safety Board after the accident with the Stint in 2018. That accident prompted the Board to investigate “the way in which light motorized vehicles, including the Stint, come on the road”.
It already went completely wrong when the research objective and the research questions were formulated: “The statutory task of the Dutch Safety Board is to find out the (underlying) causes of an accident, so that measures can be taken to prevent these causes from recurring and causing another accident.” Neither the Board nor anyone else has been able to determine the cause of the Stint accident. On 10 July 2020, 8 months after the publication of the Report, the Public Prosecution Service announced that the investigation had been completed and no definitive cause of the accident could be determined.
Nevertheless, the Board based its investigation on the premise that the Stint was technically unsafe and that this unsafety caused the accident. On the other hand, in the report the Board has not provided a well-founded answer to the two research questions that they themselves formulated: “What role does safety play in the admission of light motorized vehicles that do not fall under the European approval procedure?” and “To what extent does that guarantee the safety of these vehicles on public roads?”
In its investigation, the Board overlooked the fact that the safety of light motorized vehicles, which are not covered by Regulation 168/2013, is guaranteed by the Machinery, EMC and RoHS Directives, which list extensive safety requirements. These have been translated into EN 15194 and EN 17128 and are currently also being converted into European standards for electric cargocycles. Consequently, the second research question has been answered completely incorrectly. The Board has assessed the assurance of the safety of the vehicles on the basis of the additional Dutch procedure. The actual safety requirements that apply in all European member states have been left aside in the assessment. And so it happened that in their recommendations the Board clearly demonstrated their lack of knowledge of relevant European legislation. The first recommendation is: “Perform an integral risk assessment on the different types of light motor vehicles.” Let that risk assessment be one of the central requirements of the Machinery Directive.
In the report, the Board systematically ignores European legislation. On page 21 they write: “A vehicle is illegal on the road if it has not been allowed on the road through an approval procedure and does not fall into a category exempt from approval.” All light motorized vehicles that the Board is targeting are exempt from approval: e-(cargo)cycles according to Article 2.2.h in Regulation 168/2013, e-scooters and electric skateboards according to Article 2.2.j, self-balancing vehicles with or without steering wheel according to Article 2.2.i. Article 6.1 of the Machinery Directive states: “Member States shall not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market and/or putting into service in their territory of machinery which complies with this Directive.” We believe that the Dutch approval procedure is in breach of this article.
The Board came to the devastating conclusion that the Dutch government had been far too lax in approving and admitting vehicles such as the Stint. That conclusion was not based on the finding of objective and structural safety deficiencies in the vehicle concerned. The Board also failed to reveal a causal link between the accident and their conclusions. What’s worse, the Board also identified safety problems in, among other things, mobility scooters and e-(cargo)cycles, without devoting a single word to the nature of those problems and the source of information on which those conclusions were based.
The only safety-related fact the Council stated was that, of the 678 road fatalities in 2018, more than 140 people were users or occupants of a light motorized vehicle. The source for that figure in the report was the Dutch Bureau for Statistics (CBS). We searched for that number but couldn’t find it. The CBS statistics only mention motorized vehicles for the disabled, (low performance) mopeds and motorcycles as light categories. The number of road deaths in 2018 for those 3 means of transport came to a total of 137. The Board also says: “Because illegal vehicles are used on public roads and are therefore part of traffic, this has an effect on road safety. Because the use of these vehicles is illegal, no statistics are kept about these vehicles, so there is no insight into the numbers of vehicles and accidents that happen to this group.” It seems unlikely that vehicles will be kept out of accident statistics because they are allegedly illegal. In the moped category, a fatality with a tampered moped will not be excluded from the statistics. The CBS statistics include a category “other” which may well include, among other things, road deaths involving “illegal vehicles”. The total in 2018 was 13. The question of what effect these so-called illegal vehicles have on road safety remains unanswered.
There is therefore no clarity at all about the number of road deaths with e-(cargo)cycles, e-scooters, self-balancing vehicles and other so-called “special mopeds“. There is also no evidence of any structural safety deficiencies in those vehicles, let alone vehicles that have caused road deaths due to technical defects. And yet the Board finds the situation so alarming that action is needed.
Two years later, the ministerial response to the report is ready, but it is highly doubtful whether it will have any impact on the number of light electric vehicle fatalities. After all, when referring to those 140 deaths, no explanation was given as to how those people died. This way you can give the impression that they are all due to unsafe vehicles and that if you apply an LEV framework to make them safer, there will soon be no more LEV fatalities. There is indeed a good chance that there will be fewer fatalities, not thanks to safer vehicles, but due to a decrease in the number of vehicles.
Instead of recognizing European regulations and using them as a technical basis for admission to traffic and for enforcement, the Netherlands believes it would be wiser to develop its own specific rules. The Ministry states that the European Commission has been contacted in advance about this. They indicated that, despite the Machinery Directive, there was room for national rules. Only, in our view, the Dutch Ministry has misinterpreted that space. Member States are indeed allowed to apply national requirements to matters related to the use of the vehicle, such as lighting, for example. Member States may not just add purely technical requirements to those of the Machinery Directive. The Ministry also stated that their rules are “inspired by EN 15194”. That is the standard for two-wheeled, electric bicycles with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and 250W, not exactly the right basis for the vehicles that the Ministry is targeting. Cycles with more wheels, for example, have been deliberately excluded from that standard because they require their own adapted standards. That work is currently underway in CEN … under the care of a Dutch secretariat.
The Ministry stated: “As long as there are no European rules, we must fill that gap nationally. We cannot escape the report of the Dutch Safety Board. In the meantime, the Netherlands is willing to contribute to a European framework.” However, the Dutch representation has never raised this alleged lacuna in the Motorcycle Working Group, where the European Commission discusses, among other things, deficiencies in Regulation 168/2013 with the Member States and stakeholders.
In December, the Minister will debate on the LEV framework with the Dutch House of Representatives. If approved, this framework is expected to enter into force in January 2023. In the meantime, LEVA-EU, in collaboration with its members, will do everything it can to change the mind of the Dutch Representatives. In addition, LEVA-EU will raise the suspected illegality of that framework with the European Commission. Final quote from the report: by investigating the causes of an accident, “the Dutch Safety Board contributes to increased safety.” Whether this research will contribute much to safety is highly questionable.
Road Fatalities in NL
2017
2018
2019
2020
Cars, vans and trucks
226
259
265
218
(e-)Bicycles
206
228
203
229
Motorized wheelchairs
25
44
42
34
(Low performance) mopeds
41
38
45
36
Motorcycles
51
42
52
44
Pedestrians
58
54
49
41
Other
6
13
8
8
Total
613
678
664
610
Source: CBS
Campaign success
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Member profile
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
