Tag Archive: Machinery Directive

  1. LEVA-EU Urges Belgian Authorities to Focus on Market Surveillance Instead of Creating Yet Another National Technical Framework for E-Scooters

    Comments Off on LEVA-EU Urges Belgian Authorities to Focus on Market Surveillance Instead of Creating Yet Another National Technical Framework for E-Scooters

    LEVA-EU warns that Belgium risks undermining sustainable mobility as well as both innovation and legal certainty by considering new national technical requirements and even a national technical framework for e-scooters. The proposals result from an alleged alarming increase in accidents involving e-scooters.

    Discussions in the Federal Parliament’s Mobility Committee and statements by Federal Minister of Mobility Jean-Luc Crucke have suggested the introduction of helmets, yellow vests, number plates, insurance obligations, along with national technical requirements — even up to the possible development of a Belgian approval framework for e-scooters.

    LEVA-EU cautions that any national technical requirements would duplicate existing EU law, fragment the internal market, and penalise compliant users and manufacturers instead of tackling one of the real issues first — the sale of illegal, non-conforming vehicles resulting from insufficient market surveillance.

    LEVA-EU underlines that the lack of market surveillance is also at the root of problems with electric bicycles, particularly those referred to as “fat bikes.” The term “fat bike” has no legal basis. Legally compliant fat bikes are simply electric bicycles with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and a maximum continuous rated power of 250 W.

    “A complete European technical framework for both e-scooters and electric bikes (including fat bikes) already exists. The problem is not a lack of rules — it is a lack of enforcement,” said Annick Roetynck, Managing Director of LEVA-EU. “Illegal and unsafe vehicles can already be easily identified and should be removed through effective surveillance. Meanwhile, further research should be conducted into other possible causes of accidents such as infrastructure, rider behaviour, and conflicts with other road users. Taking measures before such research has been carried out amounts to putting the cart before the horse”

    The proposal to impose compulsory insurance and number plates on electric bicycles used for rental or professional purposes is, in LEVA-EU’s view, unnecessary, discriminatory, and unworkable. It is practically impossible to distinguish consistently between professional and private use. More importantly, the purpose of such a measure, how it would be enforced, and at what cost, remains unclear. Rather than introducing confusing and unenforceable new obligations, efforts should focus on better implementation of existing EU rules and on effective market surveillance to ensure that only compliant vehicles are sold and used.

    Recent research into Belgian road users’ knowledge of the rules governing e-scooters has shown a significant lack of understanding. Many users are unaware of even the basic regulations regarding where, how and by who e-scooters may be used. Moreover, most users do not know the legal technical requirements for e-scooters. As a result, they are unable to distinguish between legal and illegal vehicles and may unintentionally purchase non-compliant or unsafe products. LEVA-EU therefore urges the Belgian authorities to urgently launch information and awareness campaigns to improve both consumers’ understanding of the law and their behaviour in traffic. This is essential for reducing accidents and ensuring safer mobility.

    LEVA-EU calls on the Belgian authorities to:
    • Strengthen market surveillance to stop illegal and unsafe products at the source.
    • Abandon plans for national technical rules or frameworks that contradict EU law.
    • Base new measures on evidence and research, not assumptions.
    • Inform consumers so they can recognise legal, compliant products and now how to legally use them.
    • Support the creation of a harmonised EU Regulation specifically for LEVs.

    Belgium has long been regarded as a pioneer in good governance on light electric vehicles, striking a smart balance between European technical legislation and well-designed user rules. LEVA-EU urges Belgium to continue that leadership role — not by creating new national frameworks, but by championing at European level a dedicated European LEV Regulation to be developed in close consultation with the LEV sector to ensure coherent, future-oriented mobility policy.

    LEVA-EU has submitted its recommendations for a coherent and future-oriented framework for light electric vehicles to Minister Crucke, Minister Clarinval and to the proposers of legislation concerning electric scooters.

    The recommendations are here in 3 languages:

  2. ZIV Proposal Poses Serious Risk to the Future of EPACs and Cargo Bikes in Europe

    Comments Off on ZIV Proposal Poses Serious Risk to the Future of EPACs and Cargo Bikes in Europe

    Last week, LEVA-EU took part in the International Cargo Bike Festival (ICBF) in Utrecht. We hosted a well-attended stand and an open information meeting, dedicated to the Battery Regulation and the ZIV position on EPACs. Our conversations in Utrecht clearly showed that many LEV companies have either not thoroughly read the ZIV position or do not fully understand the consequences for their vehicles and their businesses. Therefore, we will once again explain the possible implications of the ZIV position here. We will also keep our open letter calling on ZIV to withdraw its position online for one more week.

    The German Bicycle Industry Association, ZIV, claims that the legal status of the Electrically Power Assisted Cycle (EPAC) is under threat and that the legal definition of EPAC therefore needs clarification. However, ZIV does not explain how or by whom the EPAC status is supposedly being threatened. The narrative around this EPAC status is also particularly confusing. ZIV asserts that the EPAC has the legal status of a bicycle, which is simply incorrect. Legally, the EPAC is not treated in the same way as a conventional bicycle. The technical requirements that ZIV seeks to change in order to “protect” the EPAC status are entirely different from those that apply to bicycles without motors.

    What is true is that the 27 Member States have granted EPACs the same rules of use as conventional bicycles. However, EPACs are not unique in this regard. In some Member States, electric scooters, powered cycles (L1e-A) and speed pedelecs also enjoy similar usage conditions. Furthermore, no Member State is currently questioning these conditions for EPACs.

    Yet according to ZIV, there is such danger that they propose to restrict the EPAC to a certain category of two-wheeled electric bicycles. This would mean pushing a large part of current EPAC vehicles out of this category and instead placing them under Regulation 168/2013 and its type-approval framework.

    Amending Article 2.2(h)

    In essence, ZIV is saying—though not explicitly—that their proposal would only be possible by amending Article 2.2(h) of Regulation 168/2013. That article currently excludes from type-approval

    “Pedal cycles with pedal assistance equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 250 W, where the motor output is cut off when the cyclist stops pedalling and is otherwise progressively reduced and finally cut off before the vehicle speed reaches 25 km/h.”

    To implement the ZIV proposal in legislation, this article would need to be changed to:

    “Pedal cycles with pedal assistance with a maximum weight of 250 kg for single-track cycles or 300 kg for multi-track cycles which are equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of less than or equal to 250 W, a maximum assistance power of 750 W at the drive wheel, a support ratio of 1:4, and a support ratio of 1:6 possible up to a maximum of 15 km/h, where the output of the motor is cut off when the cyclist stops pedalling and is otherwise progressively reduced and finally cut off before the vehicle speed reaches 25 km/h.”

    Destructive Proposal

    As a result, a large number of EPACs would be removed from the current Machinery Directive framework—combined with standards such as EN 15194, EN 17404 and the EN 17860 series—and instead be pushed into the L1, L2, or L6 categories. This also means that the existing compliance procedure—where self-certification is possible, optionally combined with testing by a test laboratory of choice—would be replaced by a mandatory type-approval system. Under this system, you must build a vehicle type in accordance with 1,032 pages of requirements and tests. That type must then be approved by an accredited technical service. There are only a handful of such services in the EU capable of testing LEVs to L-category legal requirements. Worse still, these legal requirements are completely unsuited to the technical characteristics of LEVs.

    If vehicles are pushed into the L-category, they will automatically lose their existing usage rights in Member States. Many Member States do not even know how to deal with L1e-A vehicles, of which there are virtually none on the road today. In L1e-B, L2 or L6, these vehicles are almost automatically classified as mopeds.

    Under the ZIV proposal, the following vehicles, for example, would be forced into the L-category:

    • EPACs with two wheels and an assistance factor > 4, even if assistance is limited to 25 km/h, maximum continuous rated power to 250W, and peak power to < 750W
    • EPACs with two wheels and peak power > 750W, even if assistance is limited to 25 km/h, maximum continuous rated power to 250W, and assistance factor to < 4
    • EPACs with two wheels weighing over 250 kg, even if assistance is limited to 25 km/h, maximum continuous rated power to 250W, peak power to < 750W and assistance factor to < 4
    • EPACs with three or four wheels weighing over 300 kg, even if assistance is limited to 25 km/h, maximum continuous rated power to 250W, peak power to < 750W and assistance factor to < 4

    It appears that ZIV uses “weight” to refer to total permitted weight, including the vehicle, rider, passenger(s), and cargo.

    The above examples clearly show that the ZIV proposal—supposedly intended to protect the EPAC—would in reality devastate a large portion of the EPAC market.

    Violation of Technological Neutrality Principle

    Regulation 168/2013 already violates the legal principle of technological neutrality because it places vehicles with exactly the same kinetic energy into two completely different legal frameworks. An EPAC weighing 25 kg, with assistance up to 25 km/h and 250W, produces exactly the same kinetic energy as one with 300W. Yet the first is excluded from Regulation 168/2013 and subject to the Machinery Directive (under which millions of EPACs have successfully been placed on the market), while the second falls under L1e-A (under which almost no EPACs have entered the market).

    ZIV likes to portray LEVA-EU as merely trying to endlessly raise power limits. Coincidentally or not, LEVA-EU has recently been attacked twice by journalists based on this misconception. ZIV knows full well that an EPAC with a maximum continuous power of 500W limited to 25 km/h cannot travel a nanosecond faster than one with 250W. They also know that for instance heavy cargo bikes need higher peak power to operate safely, especially in hilly environments.

    With the ZIV proposal, many EPACs would be removed from the Machinery Directive and instead fall under Regulation 168/2013, destroying the existing market for these vehicles. Nearly all vehicles seen in Utrecht would be affected. A representative of a multinational e-commerce and logistics company asked at ICBF how cities would react if all electric cargo bikes currently used for urban logistics had to be replaced by vans again in the short term.

    Destructive proposal

    With this disastrous proposal, ZIV claims to be safeguarding active mobility. The idea of manipulating technical legislation to supposedly promote certain forms of mobility while killing others is utterly absurd. Active mobility is encouraged through financial or fiscal incentives, not by rewriting technical legislation to exclude certain vehicles from the market. The claim that “the majority of global bicycle manufacturers, together with 13 drive system manufacturers” support this proposal is incomprehensible—unless, of course, these manufacturers do not fully understand its consequences.

    We therefore once again strongly urge you to carefully read the ZIV proposal and its potentially disastrous consequences for the LEV sector. Part of the LEVA-EU Info Meeting at ICBF was dedicated to this topic. You can find the relevant part of the presentation here: https://tinyurl.com/3y53hbhv

    If you have any further questions, we are ready to answer them. If you, like us, believe that this proposal must be urgently withdrawn, and you have not yet signed the open letter, you can still do so here: https://leva-eu.com/sign-leva-eu-open-letter-stop-ziv-proposal/. Please scroll down to the bottom of the webpage. The letter will be definitively closed on Friday evening, 24 October.

  3. LEVA-EU at the International Cargo Bike Festival, Utrecht — 13–14 October

    Comments Off on LEVA-EU at the International Cargo Bike Festival, Utrecht — 13–14 October

    LEVA-EU will exhibit at the International Cargo Bike Festival (ICBF) in Jaarbeurs Utrecht on 13–14 October. We’ll use this platform to meet businesses across the e-cargo bike value chain and to discuss fast-moving changes in EU regulations and standards—especially the ZIV proposal and the EU Battery Regulation—that will shape the sector’s path in the coming years.

    Why this matters now

    The regulatory landscape for e-cargo bikes is shifting on two fronts:

    • EU Battery Regulation: New obligations are phasing in step by step. Each guidance note and deadline clarifies what manufacturers and suppliers must do in practice.
    • EN 17860 series: For the first time, the sector has a comprehensive, purpose-built set of technical requirements and test methods for e-cargo bikes. Under the current Machinery Directive framework, this enables manufacturers to place demonstrably safe vehicles on the market.

    At the same time, the ZIV proposal could push a large share of today’s e-cargo bikes out of the EPAC framework and into Regulation (EU) 168/2013 type-approval—an ill-suited, moped-/motorcycle-oriented regime that would overhaul compliance pathways, add significant fixed testing and certification costs, and jeopardize the availability of many viable models.

    What LEVA-EU will do at ICBF

    • Explain the changes: We’ll map the practical implications of the Battery Regulation, EN 17860-standards, and the ZIV proposal for manufacturers, importers, and suppliers.
    • Listen and collect input: Your operational realities—design choices, component sourcing, documentation, testing—will inform our advocacy.
    • Coordinate industry response: We’ll help align positions to protect fair, proportionate, and innovation-friendly rules.

    Free information session (open to all professional visitors)

    LEVA-EU will host a free info meeting on standardisation and compliance, focusing on:

    • The Battery Regulation: upcoming obligations and what to prepare now
    • EN 17860: how to use the series to demonstrate safety and conformity
    • The ZIV proposal: risks of narrowing the EPAC definition and pushing innovative LEVs—such as e-cargo bikes and vehicles adapted for people with disabilities—into type-approval, with knock-on effects for costs, time-to-market, and inclusion

    Timing and room details will be announced shortly. Please check back or contact us to receive the update.

    Meet us at ICBF
    For an appointment during the festival, contact Annick Roetynck, LEVA-EU Manager: annick@leva-eu.com. Annick will be on site on both exhibition days.

  4. LEVA-EU at ICBF to Support E-Cargo Bike Companies with Key Regulatory Updates & Guidance

    Comments Off on LEVA-EU at ICBF to Support E-Cargo Bike Companies with Key Regulatory Updates & Guidance

    LEVA-EU will have a booth at the International Cargo Bike Festival (ICBF) in Utrecht, Netherlands, on October 25th and 26th. This event offers LEVA-EU a unique opportunity to engage with businesses in the e-cargo bike sector and discuss critical changes in regulations and standards. With the recent release of the long-awaited EN 17860 standards, new Battery and Machinery Regulations, and the Right to Repair Directive, the sector is on the brink of significant transformation.

    Fundamental regulatory changes for e-cargo bikes are closer than ever. The European Commission has recently adopted new urban mobility policy recommendations, which could reshape the technical framework for light electric vehicles, including e-cargo bikes. These recommendations could potentially result in the removal of Light Electric Vehicles (LEVs) from Regulation 168/2013 and the Machinery Directive. That could, in turn, allow for the lifting of the restrictive 250W power limit and for technologies other than pedal assistance only. This change would unlock new opportunities for developing e-cargo bikes capable of carrying heavier loads, giving the sector much-needed freedom and growth potential.

    At the ICBF, LEVA-EU will be available at the Jaarbeurs Utrecht to provide insights into these regulatory developments and to listen to the concerns of industry players. In addition, LEVA-EU will host a free information session on standardisation on Friday, October 25th, from 12:00 to 14:00, open to all professional visitors. Supported by SBS, this session will guide participants through the intricacies of standardisation, including how standards are developed, approved, and connected to legislation, as well as how companies can get involved in the process.

    LEVA-EU will also provide a detailed update on the current state of e-cargo bike standards, including the impact of the new Machinery and Battery Regulations. With CENELEC tasked by the European Commission to develop new standards for batteries in light electric vehicles, this session will cover everything professionals need to know. There will also be plenty of time for questions and discussion.

    Additionally, ICBF will mark the launch of LEVA-EU’s annual membership promotion. New members can sign up starting November 1st, receiving two bonus months of membership through December 31st of the following year. Businesses that join on October 25th or 26th will also benefit from this special offer.

    For an appointment with LEVA-EU at ICBF, please contact LEVA-EU Manager Annick Roetynck, annick@leva-eu.com. She will be present on Friday and Saturday. LEVA-EU Technical Director, Bram Rotthier, will be at ICBF on Friday only.

    Don’t miss this chance to stay informed and connected in the evolving world of e-cargo bikes!

  5. UK Government Extends CE Mark Recognition

    Comments Off on UK Government Extends CE Mark Recognition

    During the summer holidays, the UK Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has announced an indefinite extension of the use of CE marking for businesses in the whole of the UK.

    CE marking, which signifies conformity with European technical legislation, will continue to be allowed alongside the UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) mark. Originally the idea was to abolish CE marking and replace it completely with UKCA in Great-Britain. For Northern-Ireland, the plan was always to maintain CE marking only.

    The extension of the validity of the CE marking comes after extensive consultations with industry stakeholders, addressing their concerns and aligning with their growth objectives. By allowing businesses to continue using CE marking, the government allegedly aims to provide them with the clarity needed to focus on innovation and expansion, rather than navigating regulatory complexities. The extension should provide businesses with flexibility and choice to use either the UKCA or CE approach to sell products in Great Britain.

    However, it’s unclear what the effect will be once the legislation behind the respective marks will start to deviate from each other. The best example is the replacement of the Machinery Directive by the Machinery Regulation. As of end December 2026, in the EU the current Directive will be replaced by a Regulation with a number of new and amended requirements. The UK will not implement the new Machinery Regulation but will stay with the Machinery Directive. Consequently, the CE marking and the UKCA marking will stand for two different things. Since the UKCA marking will not cover the additional and amended requirements of the new Regulation, it may then be attractive to opt for the UKCA marking for the Brittish market. As times moves on, the CE and UKCA markings will only grow further apart.

    Another issue relates to the fact that the UK continues its participation in European standards. If standards get harmonized under the new Machinery Regulation, this harmonization will have no legal value in the UK, which will not implement that Regulation. All these are difficult questions which the current government has clearly decided to pass on to their successors.

  6. New Machinery Regulation: adverse effects on Light Electric Vehicles Business

    Comments Off on New Machinery Regulation: adverse effects on Light Electric Vehicles Business

    End of last year, the European Parliament, Council and Commission reached an agreement on the future Machinery Regulation. Parliament and Council went against the Commission’s proposal to exclude all vehicles from the future legislation. That will have particularly adverse effects on electric cycles, e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles.

    Originally, the Commission proposed to exclude all “vehicles which have as their only objective the transport of goods or persons by road, air, water of rail (…).” The justification was that Machinery legislation was “not meant to regulate risks other than those stemming from the machinery function (such as sawing, excavating, etc.) and not the risks exclusively relating to its transport function of persons or goods.” If they had been excluded, they would have come under the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD), just like conventional cycles. More importantly, this would only have been a temporary solution in anticipation of a specific Regulation for Light Electric Vehicles.

    Unnecessary Machinery Directive

    The intermediate solution of the GPSD would have been so much better for LEVs because this Directive only has very general requirements. In addition, there are already several European standards with specific technical safety requirements in place, i.e. the EN 15194 for EPACs, the EN 17128 for PLEVs (e-scooters & self-balancing vehicles) and the EN 17404 for EPAC mountain bikes. The fact that these vehicles present no structural safety risks shows that the standards offer adequate technical requirements and that the Machinery Directive is unnecessary to ensure that safety.

    On the contrary, in recent years, in standardisation it has become increasingly clear how much the current Machinery Directive is an obstacle to Light Electric Vehicles (LEVs). The Directive contains hazards that are totally irrelevant to LEVs, for instance noise, vibrations or protection against risks from moving parts.

    HAS consultants

    Originally, there were in-house CEN consultants, who worked together with the technical committees to ensure that the draft standards met the requirements of the Machinery Directive in the best possible way to maximize the chances of harmonization. The harmonization of standards under the Machinery Directive offers manufacturers presumption of conformity in case of a dispute, or worse, a court-case. This presumption of conformity is an important guarantee of legal certainty.

    With these in-house consultants, there was room to negotiate which requirements were relevant or not. One very important agreement for the EN 15194 (EPACs) for instance was that the requirements for moving parts were not relevant for cycle wheels. Without that agreement, the standard would have required all wheels to be covered.

    Since, the Commission has changed the system. They replaced the in-house consultants by so-called Harmonised Standards (HAS) consultants. The contract was outsourced to a private company, i.e. Ernst & Young. The task of these consultants is to support the Commission to verify whether the requirements for harmonisation are met. However, HAS consultants are no longer involved in the actual drafting processes and therefore technical committees can no longer make use of HAS consultants services to fill any potential gaps in the technical or legal expertise, nor to negotiate.

    Harmonisation impossible

    What’s worse for LEVs, HAS consultants make all Machinery Directive requirements applicable to LEVs, whether relevant are not. As a result, in the new system none of the LEV- standards has achieved harmonisation.  To this end, nonsensical tests should be introduced such as on the noise level the vehicles produce or on vibrations, which for LEVs obviously come from the road surface not from the vehicle itself. As for the future standards for electric cargocycles, it is already clear that no harmonisation will be requested because it is simply not feasible.

    The new Machinery Regulation will only exacerbate these issues. Indeed, the new legal text will now explicitly state that the Regulation applies only to risks arising from the machinery function, not the transport function. However, who will determine what is a machinery function and what is a transport function? In our view, LEVs don’t have machinery functions, only transport functions. That is exactly why the Commission thought it necessary to exclude them. Unfortunately, the European Parliament and Council literally twisted the Commission’s words, the result being an unworkable mess.

    Disastrous impact

    One party that argued hard to keep LEVs, more specifically electric bikes, in the new legal text was CONEBI, the trade association for the (electric) bike industry. We quote from their position paper: “The EU Machinery Directive is of high importance to the EU Bicycle Industry as it legislates the essential health and safety requirements relating to the design and construction of electrically power assisted cycles (EPACs). The fact that EPACs are within the scope of the Machinery Directive was officially acknowledged in the first Edition of the Guide to Application of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC of December 2009.”

    CONEBI clearly does not question the adequacy of the essential health and safety machinery requirements for EPACs. Also, the CONEBI memory is somewhat lacking here. in 2006, yours truly and a representative of CONEBI (called COLIBI at that time) had a meeting with the Commission to ask if there was still any chance of avoiding the Machinery Directive for electric bicycles excluded from type-approval. In other words, originally CONEBI was not in favour of having electric bikes in the Machinery Directive. Their current efforts to keep EPACs in the new Machinery Regulation clearly shows that the association has no understanding of the impact on standardisation for EPACs AND for other light, electric vehicles, nor of the consequences for the businesses concerned. Hopefully their understanding will grow as the disastrous impact of the new legislation on LEVs becomes a reality. In the meantime, LEVA-EU will continue its efforts for a specific LEV-Regulation designed in consultation with the LEV-business for the LEV-business.

    Photo by Jonathan Borba on Unsplash

  7. EU Standardization News

    Comments Off on EU Standardization News

    HAS assessment contract re-established
     The European Commission has signed a new contract with Ernst & Young for the HAS (Harmonised Standards) assessment process. Ernst & Young was the previous contractor until the beginning of 2022. This means that the HAS consultants system will be restored shortly and Technical Committees will therefore be able to request assessments of harmonised standards. CEN and CENELEC have stated they will request HAS assessments in the following order:

    • Documents received for Formal Vote;
    • Documents received for Enquiry and or which Enquiry has started;
    • On ad-hoc basis: all other documents (e.g first working drafts, documents not assessed previously and before publication).

    Webinar on how to draft machinery harmonised standards
     On 6 October, from 14.00 till 16.30, CEN and CENELEC will organise a webinar with practical information on how to prepare harmonised standards under the Machinery Directive. The workshop will provide advice on how to write the informative annex (Annex Z) with information on the relation between the essential requirements of the Machinery Directive and the clauses of the standard providing presumption of conformity with those requirements (once the reference of the standard reference is published in the Official Journal).
    Registration is mandatory and is available here: https://cencenelec.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_C22eFvsoRmC99VhY_xmUNA

  8. New Machinery Regulation: SBS backs LEVA-EU plea for LEV-exclusion

    Comments Off on New Machinery Regulation: SBS backs LEVA-EU plea for LEV-exclusion

    Recently, SBS has published a position paper on the proposal for a revision of the Machinery Directive. The proposal, published in April, is currently under discussion in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) of the European Parliament.

    SBS is a non-profit association co-financed by the European Commission and EFTA Member States. Its goal is to represent and defend small and medium-sized enterprises’ (SMEs) interests in the standardisation process. With Eddie Eccleston, LEVA-EU has an SBS-expert in CEN TC 333

    SBS is generally supportive of the Commission’s proposal and is optimistic regarding the ongoing discussion in the European Parliament. However, SBS warns that several points require improvement in order to create a piece of legislation that supports SMEs. One of those points is the exclusion of all means of transport from the new Machinery Regulation.

    On that point, SBS supports the position of LEVA-EU unreservedly. We quote from the SBS-position paper: “SBS welcomes the exclusion of light, electric vehicles (LEVs) from the Machinery Regulation and deeply regrets all IMCO amendments aimed at preventing such exclusion. This exclusion is essential to allow for electric cycles and LEVs in general to realise their full potential and contribute to cutting GHG emissions. The exclusion is further justified by the fact that Machinery legislation is not meant to regulate risks exclusively related to the transport of persons or goods.

    Exclusion from the Machinery Regulation will not create a legal vacuum since the vehicles will temporarily come under the General Product Safety Directive. Manufacturers will be able to continue to use existing EU standards such as EN 15194:2017 and EN 17128:2018. For the LEV sector, where SMEs are a majority, it is important to be able to rely on standards to be able to put their products on the market. However, the harmonisation of these standards under the Machinery Directive is becoming increasingly difficult because the EHSRs have not been developed specifically for means of transport such as LEVs.

    As things stand, both the Machinery Directive and Regulation 168/2013 prove to be inadequate for LEVs, and the development of a horizontal legal text with general safety requirements for means of transport not subject to type-approval complemented with harmonised standards is by far the preferable option. In a recent study on 2 and 3-wheel vehicles, quadricycles and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs), carried out at the request of the European Commission the conclusion is that “a dedicated system for the harmonised approval of PMDs that is separate from both Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 and the Machinery Directive” is the preferred way forward. Therefore, the exclusion of LEVs from the Machinery Regulation should be only the first step towards the development of effective, tailored European legislation on LEVs. SBS calls for the European Commission to urgently take such a step and propose as soon as possible a new proposal for legislation specifically covering LEVs.”

    The IMCO amendments were inspired by parties who predict that moving vehicles from the Machinery Directive to the GPSD, in anticipation of specific LEV-legislation will “lead to uncertainty in the industry”, as stated in the CONEBI position. The trade association for the bicycle industry also argues that the current Machinery Directive is “a key legislation for the EU Bicycle Industry” and the harmonisation of EN 15194:2017 has “consistently ensured that a safe product is being place on the European market.” CONEBI also intimates that exclusion of vehicles from the new Machinery Regulation may “undo years of standardisation work of the industry”.

    All these assertions and predictions are unfounded and factually incorrect. EN 15194:2017 has not consistently ensured that a safe product is placed on the EU market. The common sense and sense of responsibility of the assemblers in this sector has consistently ensured those safe products.

    CONEBI conveniently fails to mention that there have been several national objections against the standard for failing or missing requirements. The Dutch objection against the battery requirements was the fiercest objection. Exclusion from the Machinery Regulation will hardly have an impact on the standardisation work done throughout the years. The EN 15194:2017 will survive with all its flaws. It will only loose its harmonisation under the Machinery Regulation.

    Again, for convenience, CONEBI forgets to mention that the standard for electric mountain bikes and for PLEVs never made harmonisation under the Machinery Directive. This is primarily because the Machinery Directive was never intended for vehicles. We are now continuously confronted with this problem in TC333/WG9, where we are developing standards for electric cargocycles. If vehicles were to be excluded from the Machinery Regulation, then we will no longer have to waste time on developing  requirements just for the sake of the Machinery Directive, which do not have much to do with the safety of electric cargocycles.

    Finally, CONEBI conveniently fails to mention that the amendments tabled in IMCO to get vehicles back into the Machinery Regulation are not limited to EPACs but cover all vehicles currently excluded from Regulation 168/2013. In addition, CONEBI has never advocated specific and accurate technical legislation for EPACs and other LEVs. They just argue in unison for the status quo.

  9. Commission proposes to exclude LEVs from Machinery Directive

    Comments Off on Commission proposes to exclude LEVs from Machinery Directive

    On 21 April, the European Commission has published a proposal for a new Machinery Regulation. The text holds one crucial point for the LEV-sector: the exclusion of all vehicles for the transport of goods and persons. LEVA-EU is very pleased with this first step towards specific technical legislation for light, electric vehicles.

    The current Machinery Directive entered into force in July 2006. Article 1.2 of that legal text excluded vehicles covered by type-approval from the scope of the Directive. As electric bicycles with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and 250W were excluded from type-approval, they became subject to the Machinery Directive.  Earlier that year, ETRA and COLIBI, the trade associations for bicycle dealers and for bicycle manufacturers respectively, had a meeting with the Commission to see if there was still any chance of avoiding the Machinery Directive for electric bicycles. The Commission responded that this was impossible. However, they did reassure the two associations that there would be a moratorium for compliance in the field of electric bicycles.

    The EN 15194 was already in place at that time and, immediately after that meeting, CEN TC 333 – WG5 set out to harmonize the standard under the Machinery Directive. Such harmonization results in presumption of conformity. In other words, for electric bicycle manufacturers the standard would be a legally secure tool to comply with the Machinery Directive. However, the process took 11 years. The harmonized standard was only published in 2017.

    In the meantime, the Commission has drastically changed the harmonization procedure. Originally, specialist consultants within CEN assisted technical committees in drafting standards that fulfilled the requirements of the Machinery Directive. In the new system, the Commission has awarded Ernst & Young with a contract to provide and lead a team of so-called Harmonized Standards (HAS) consultants. These no longer assist the technical committees, but only assess the text once completed. It turns out to be much more difficult to produce standards which are accepted for harmonization.

    Recently, the draft standard for electric mountain bikes was rejected for harmonization. The EN 17128 for Personal Light Electric Vehicles, i.e. without a seating position and self-balancing, didn’t make harmonization either but was published anyhow. As a result, a vehicle complying with this standard is not presumed to be in conformity with the Machinery Directive. EN 15194 is also under growing pressure. The Netherlands have lodged a formal objection against the harmonization due to inadequate battery safety requirements, whilst Germany demands a vibration test. In fact, EN 15194 should be fundamentally revised, but in the current circumstances it is unlikely for the revised standard to make it through harmonization. Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that certain requirements are only included in standards just for the sake of complying with the Directive, not because they are absolutely necessary to guarantee safe electric bicycles or other LEVs.

    End of last year, LEVA-EU sent a position paper to the Commission pleading for the exclusion of light, electric vehicles from the new legislation. The trade association argued that the Directive had never been intended to cover vehicles and that the Commission’s proposals for the new Regulation would exacerbate the problems.  The proposal holds new requirements which would be difficult for LEVs to meet and increase the administrative burden, which is already significant, even further.

    LEVA-EU’s plea has finally been heard by the Commission. In the Impact Assessment the Commission concludes: “The MD already excluded means of transport by air, water, rail networks, and means of transport by road regulated in the EU’s type-approval legislation. By default, vehicles that were not regulated by that legislation were covered by the MD. Although a vehicle may fall under the definition of machinery, the purpose of the machinery legislation is to address the risks stemming from the machinery performing its function (such as excavator in a construction site), not the risks related to its circulation on the public roads. This option would make clear that the revised MD does not apply to means of transport, regardless of the speed limits, with the exception of machinery mounted on these means of transport. The means of transport includes all vehicles, the only objective of which is the transport of goods or persons. The following vehicles would therefore be excluded from the revised MD: (i) light vehicles, such as electrically power-assisted cycles, hover boards, or self-balancing scooters; (…)”

    The exclusion of LEVs from the Machinery Directive will not necessarily create a legal vacuum. First of all, it will take some time for the European Parliament and the Council to adopt the final text, which will provide for a transitional period. After that, there are two possibilities. Either, the General Product safety Directive, which covers all products not covered by specific safety legislation, can take over. Alternatively, the Commission could develop new specific LEV-legislation. It appears that the Commission Unit that has ordered the TRL-study on so-called Mobility Devices, is considering such a new initiative. LEVA-EU will continue its efforts for LEVs also to be excluded from Regulation 168/2013 and for a new horizontal LEV-Regulation to replace both the Machinery Directive and type-approval legislation.

    Photo by Jonathan Borba on Unsplash