Tag Archive: Regulation 168/2013

  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. Berlin Study on EPAC Regulation Shows Clear Bias Towards Status Quo

    Comments Off on Berlin Study on EPAC Regulation Shows Clear Bias Towards Status Quo

    The recently released Kurz-Studie on Electrically Power Assisted cycles (EPACs), published by the Zentrum Nachhaltige Transformation (zNT Berlin), presents itself as an objective contribution to the mobility debate. A closer look, however, reveals that the study is biased towards preserving the current legal framework and fails to address some of the most urgent regulatory challenges facing Europe’s mobility transition.

    From the outset, the study narrows its scope by equating EPACs almost exclusively with conventional two-wheeled bicycles (2wheels) limited to 25 km/h and 250 watts. Other important EPAC categories, such as cargo bikes or inclusive vehicles for people with disabilities, are barely mentioned. This narrow perspective sidelines precisely those vehicle types that could make the greatest contribution to sustainable urban logistics and inclusive mobility solutions.

    Equally striking is the absence of any discussion of technical neutrality. Regulation 168/2013 has created a distorted situation in which vehicles with similar performance as EPACs are regulated differently depending on technical details such as throttle control or maximum continuous rated power. This breach of neutrality is one of the key barriers to fair regulation in the light electric vehicle sector, yet the study ignores it completely. As a result, the analysis paints a misleadingly positive picture of the existing framework, without acknowledging how many vehicles are effectively locked out of the market.

    This lack of perspective is particularly apparent when considering innovation. While the study celebrates the success of the EPAC market under current rules, it does not mention the many vehicle types that have been stifled by the system. Heavy-duty cargo bikes, EPACs designed for (very) hilly terrain or adaptive solutions for mobility-impaired users are all subject to regulatory burdens that obstruct their market entry and uptake. A true assessment of the framework should weigh both the successes it has enabled and the opportunities it has prevented. Instead, the study only tells half the story.

    The bias becomes even clearer in its treatment of industry positions. LEVA-EU’s proposals for reform, such as abolishing the arbitrary and senseless 250W limit or creating a new, fairer legislation for light electric vehicles, are described as risky, theoretical or destabilising. With that, the study ignores the fact that LEVA-EU’s proposals have been recommended by the Expert Group on Urban Mobility to the European Commission. By contrast, the proposals of the Zweirad-Industrie-Verband (ZIV) are framed as pragmatic and stabilising. This rhetorical imbalance conceals the fact that the ZIV’s suggestions—such as additional limits on weight, power and support ratios—would in practice push many EPACs into Regulation 168/2013.

    This would result in type approval requirements, with the accompanying terms of use that are not adapted to the vehicles such as no access to bicycle traffic rules, helmet obligations, motor vehicle insurance obligations, etc. Such a shift would devastate large parts of the market. None of this is acknowledged in the study.

    Finally, the study leans heavily on the results of a Civey user survey, which finds that most current EPAC owners are satisfied with their Electrically Power Assisted Bicycles and see little need for change. While this finding is unsurprising, it is also limited. Surveys of today’s users naturally reflect the bulk of the existing market, but they say nothing about the untapped demand for vehicle categories that are currently limited or excluded by Regulation 168/2013. Presenting these results as evidence for regulatory stagnation misses the wider picture.

    Europe’s mobility transition cannot be achieved by freezing outdated definitions in law. A regulatory framework that is truly fair and future-proof must be based on technical neutrality, must enable innovation, and must ensure that the full diversity of EPACs and light electric vehicles can reach the market. This conclusion is also supported by the conclusions of the LEV4Climate study conducted by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and commissioned by LEVA-EU. The study demonstrated that light electric vehicles have significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and replace car trips—potential that can only be realised if legislation allows a broad spectrum of LEVs onto the market rather than restricting them to narrow, outdated categories. Protecting the status quo may serve the interests of incumbent industry players, but it undermines the broader goals of sustainability, innovation and inclusivity.

    Annick Roetynck, LEVA-EU Managing Director, concludes: “Europe’s mobility transition cannot succeed by freezing yesterday’s definitions in law. We need a regulatory framework that is fair, technically neutral, and future-proof—one that enables the full diversity of EPACs and LEVs to reach the market.”

  4. Do We Really Want Europe’s Light Electric Vehicle Future to Look Like the Yamaha PAS?

    Comments Off on Do We Really Want Europe’s Light Electric Vehicle Future to Look Like the Yamaha PAS?

    I recently had the privilege of spending some time in Japan. While there, I came across the Yamaha PAS. This electric bicycle is nothing less than the very origin of the European legislation governing not only EPACs, but all electric cycles. Back in 1999, the European institutions were drafting Directive 2002/24/EC on the type-approval of mopeds and motorcycles. They were determined to exclude electric bicycles, arguing that these vehicles did not belong in legislation designed for mopeds and motorcycles. At that time, electric bicycles were still in their infancy. The Yamaha PAS was then the most popular model, offering pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and a maximum rated power of 250W. And so the EU decided—without much reflection—to adopt those exact figures as the criteria for exclusion from the L-category. There was no in-depth analysis, no foresight for future developments, no serious consideration of the implications. It was an easy, almost casual decision.

    In 1999, I was there, working for ETRA, the European trade association for bicycle dealers, to protest against this approach. My objections fell on deaf ears: 25 km/h and 250W would be the rule. Years later, when the EU prepared Regulation 168/2013, I was there again to protest. On behalf of ETRA, I argued for a broader exclusion: that all electrically pedal-assisted cycles with assistance up to 25 km/h should be exempt from type-approval, without any arbitrary motor output limit—because speed, not power, is the real determining safety factor. I also argued that all very light electric vehicles under 25 kg with a maximum design speed of 25 km/h should likewise be excluded, again on the basis that speed, not power, determines safety.

    The IMCO Committee of the European Parliament was convinced. They adopted all of ETRA’s proposed amendments to broaden the scope of exclusion for LEVs. But then, at the very last moment, the European Cyclists’ Federation and CONEBI, the European trade association for the bicycle industry, intervened with their objections. They succeeded in swaying the Parliament to overturn the committee’s decision and reject all the amendments in the plenary vote.

    Now, 26 years after my first attempt to secure better legislation for LEVs, we remain bound by the same outdated limits of 25 km/h and 250W. The result is that the development, market introduction, and deployment of LEVs are still severely hampered by legislation that is, quite simply, very, very, very outdated. The question we must ask is this: do we really want the EU market for LEVs, five years from now, to still look essentially like the Yamaha PAS of the 1990s?

    Incidentally, Japan has moved forward in the field of light electric vehicles. Electric kei cars are omnipresent. These are small, lightweight cars to provide affordable, efficient mobility. They are limited by law in size, engine capacity, and power output, which makes them cheaper to buy, tax, and insure. Kei cars are popular in Japanese cities because they are easy to park, non-polluting, and often come with lower tolls and fees. Yet another thing which the EU hasn’t achieved: the creation of a proper legislative framework for micro-cars.

    Europe is truly becoming a laggard in the world of sustainable mobility.

    Annick Roetynck,
    LEVA-EU Managing Director

  5. LEVA-EU info-meetings on revision type approval

    Comments Off on LEVA-EU info-meetings on revision type approval
    LEVA-EU has argued long and hard for a revision of Directive 168/2013, which regulates type-approval for vehicles with two or more wheels. The European Commission has now finally initiated such a review. It is particularly important that as many LEV companies as possible participate in this review. To help them in this, LEVA-EU organizes info-meetings.

    From its start, LEVA-EU has argued long and hard for a review of Directive 168/2013. The professional organisation has extensively argued how the market potential of light electric vehicles (LEVs) covered by that type approval is being thwarted.

    To date, electric bicycles with pedal assistance up to 250W and 25 km / h, vehicles without a saddle, self-balancing vehicles and vehicles with a seat below a certain minimum height are excluded from Regulation 168/2013. In addition, electric bicycles 250W – 25 km / h have been given the status of a conventional bicycle in the traffic code of all member states. As a result, this category has been growing and thriving for years.

    LEVs that have remained in the Regulation, on the other hand, have a particularly difficult time. Speed ​​pedelecs, for example, have great difficulties to really develop because in most cases they are categorized as classic mopeds. However, the terms of use for mopeds are unsuitable for speed pedelecs. And so, massive uptake of speed pedelecs is not forthcoming. In L1e-A, powered cycles, the situation is even worse. In this category for electric bicycles 25 km / h with more than 250W, virtually no type approvals have been carried out since 2013.

    After all this time, LEVA-EU’s complaints have finally been heard. The European Commission has asked TRL, a research centre specialized in mobility, to investigate the position of LEVs in the type approval and their position in national traffic codes. All LEVs are scrutinized, i.e. electric scooters, self-balancing vehicles, electric bicycles in and outside the type approval, electric cargo bicycles, etc.

    TRL has started a broad survey of the sector through an online questionnaire that can be completed until October 30th. However, the current legal framework is extremely complex and confusing. It is important that LEV companies have a good understanding of that framework, in order to provide an informed and relevant response to the survey.

    LEVA-EU wants to help companies with this by means of a number of information meetings. These meetings are intended to provide a clear picture of the current legal framework. In addition, LEVA-EU will explain the opportunities and risks of the ongoing review.

    The online information meetings will start on October 13 with a first session reserved for LEVA-EU members. Then follow open meetings according to vehicle type:

    – Electric bicycles and speed pedelecs
    – Electric cargo bikes
    – PLEVs such as electric scooters and self-balancing vehicles
    – Three and four-wheel electric vehicles with pedaling function for passenger transport

    Each meeting will last 1 hour with information provided in the first half hour and questions answered in the second half hour. To participate in the meeting, interested parties should send an email to daan@leva-eu.com stating which meeting (s) they wish to attend. They will receive a personal invitation to the meeting.

    LEVA-EU Information Meetings Revision LEV Type Approval

    – Tuesday October 13, 10.30 GMT + 2: only for LEVA-EU members
    – Tuesday October 13, 14:00 GMT + 2: electric bikes and speed pedelecs
    – Wednesday October 14, 10.30 GMT + 2: PLeVS (e-scooters, self-balancing vehicles, …)
    – Wednesday October 14, 14:00 GMT + 2: electric cargo bikes
    – Thursday October 15, 10.30 GMT + 2: 3 & 4-wheel electric vehicles with pedalling function for passenger transport

    Photo by André Ravazzi on Unsplash

  6. Commission Asks TRL to Revise Technical + Road Use Rules for ALL LEVs

    Comments Off on Commission Asks TRL to Revise Technical + Road Use Rules for ALL LEVs

    On behalf of the European Commission, TRL has started an investigation into the appropriateness and accuracy of European rules governing light, electric vehicles. The Commission had announced this research at the LEVA-EU symposium in February but then seemed to indicate that the scope would be limited to “Personal Mobility Devices”, i.e. e-scooters, self-balancing vehicles, monowheels, etc. The scope now appears to include all LEVs, which creates a unique opportunity to prove the need for fundamental change.

    Last February, LEVA-EU organised a symposium on the legal status and market position of the speed pedelec. This symposium, attended by the European Commission, clearly showed how European technical rules result in great difficulties for manufacturers and that the categorisation as L-vehicle create great safety risks for speed pedelec riders.

    Speed pedelecs are not the only LEVs suffering from inadequate and outdated rules. As electric cargo-bikes take up an ever increasing role in city logistics, the 250W limit to keep them out of the L-category becomes an ever increasing obstacle. There are legal bottlenecks for LEVs excluded from the L-category just as well. Some Member States, such as the Netherlands and the UK, still forbid e-scooters on public roads. Other Member States develop their own technical rules, thus undermining the principle of European harmonisation and the single market. The national terms of use for electric tricycles and quadricycles, excluded from the L-category are totally unclear and uncertain.

    E-scooters with saddles or very light mopeds, which are technically very similar if not identical to e-scooters without saddles are not excluded from the L-category. They are therefore subject to an extremely complicated, expensive though inaccurate type-approval, upon which they are subject to the terms of use for conventional mopeds including the wear of a motorcycle helmet.

    The only LEV to enjoy a much better regulatory framework is the electric bicycle with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and 250W. This vehicle has been excluded from the L-category, as a result of which it became subject to the Machinery Directive. This has allowed for the harmonised standard EN 15194, whilst all member states have given this e-bike the same legal status as conventional bicycles. As a result, this market has been growing very steadily for several decades now.

    But to make mobility more sustainable and green, the EU needs a wider variety of LEVs. Markets, other than e-bikes 25 km/h-250W, such as speed pedelecs have only enjoyed a limited growth even though there is a clear potential. Or, the vehicles are under threat of very sudden and arbitrary changes in national rules that could suddenly destroy the market. The response of the Dutch government to the Stint accident is the best example of such threat. The insane penalties decreed by France for LEVs exceeding their speed limitation by construction is yet another sword of Damocles for the sector.

    LEVA-EU has been pleading and working for a fundamental change of the rules ever since its foundation. Without such change, the EU will never be able to achieve its Green Deal’s objectives, which include a 90% GHG emission reduction by 2050.

    At the February symposium, the EC representative announced the Commission’s intention to order a study on how LEVs, such as e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles (PMDs) could be included in the type-approval. This study has very recently been initiated by TRL and its scope appears to be broader than what the Commission announced in February.

    TRL is calling on all LEV stakeholders for their input. TRL is interested “to hear about the effects of national and regional regulations on the safety of, and market for, PMDs. We are also interested to hear any ideas that stakeholders might have for the best ways in which new and existing PMDs could be regulated in order to safely and efficiently integrate them into road use. We understand that the scope of this project includes vehicles that might already be type approved in the L category, e.g. cycles designed to pedal and cargo bikes and we are therefore open to suggestions regarding any improvements that could be made to that system.”

    LEVA-EU is extremely pleased with this widened scope that allows for research into the accuracy of the rules, not only for PMDs such as e-scooters and self-balancing vehicles but also speed pedelecs, electric cargo-bikes, electric bikes with more than 250W (L1e-A), etc. Further good news is the fact that TRL is not only going to consider technical regulations but also road circulation measures to ensure the safe deployment of these machines in the EU and the effect of regulation on the PMD market in the EU. Current problems are to a large part resulting from the fact that Regulation 168/2013 was designed without any consideration as to the effect of the technical categorisation on the terms of use for the vehicles.

    LEVA-EU herewith calls upon ALL stakeholders concerned to state their views on current LEV-regulations as well as their proposals for improving the rules. TRL is currently collecting input and plans a webinar some time in September.

    For all further details, please contact LEVA-EU Manager Annick Roetynck, tel. + 32 9 233 60 05, email annick@leva-eu.com.

  7. LEVA-EU sends open letter to EU Commission, Council & EP Presidents

    Leave a Comment

    Gent, 12 May 2020

    Open Letter to:
    – the President of the European Commission, Mrs von der Leyen
    – the President of the European Council, Mr Michel
    – the President of the European Parliament, Mr Sassoli

    Dear Mrs von der Leyen, Mr Michel and Mr Sassoli,

    LEVA-EU is the European trade association for businesses in the light electric vehicle (LEV)-sector. The term  LEV covers all electric vehicles in and excluded from the L-category, i.e. e-scooters, e-bikes, speed pedelecs, electric mopeds and motorcycles, etc..

    LEVA-EU herewith officially requests the Presidents of the European Commission, Council and Parliament to eliminate legal bottlenecks and to put LEVs at the heart of Green Deal, with a view to encouraging sustainable mobility as we are coming out of the Corona crisis.

    Almost 300,000 lives have been lost to COVID-19. We all agree that each one of those deaths is one too many. And yet, every year, we allow for 4.2 million people to die from air pollution. There appears to be a worldwide consensus that this is a price worth paying to preserve our economies and living standards. It took COVID-19 to show how life can be without that pollution: not only cleaner and healthier (in a way) but also quieter, more safe, greener, brighter, … The share of transport in that turnaround can hardly be underestimated.

    At all levels, policymakers are now faced with the choice between going back to “business as usual” or a fundamental change. It is once again the cities that are the pioneers in encouraging their citizens and businesses to make that fundamental change. A growing peloton of European cities decides to safeguard and sometimes even further expand the freed up space to allow pedestrians, cyclists and users of light, electric vehicles (LEVs) such as e-bikes, electric cargo bikes, e-scooters, etc. to keep a safe distance.

    When we now read the Green Deal, published before the Corona-crisis, the chapter on transport sounds very much overtaken by reality. Why should we wait until 2030 to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% and until 2050 to achieve climate neutrality? In October 2019, the European Environment Agency (EEA) stated: “Cutting air pollution in Europe would prevent early deaths, improve productivity and curb climate change.” How can a decision to wait until 2050, thus killing millions more, be justified, especially since the Corona crisis has shown that we are able to cut air pollution.

    That is why LEVA-EU calls upon the European Commission, Parliament and Council to support the European cities and their citizens by taking two simple, concrete measures.

    First, before the Corona crisis, the EEA already stated: “Shifting to walking, cycling and public transport is crucial for Europe to meet long-term sustainability goals and policy objectives under the EU Green Deal.” The Corona crisis has shown that the willingness to travel in a sustainable way is far beyond political expectations. In the European Green Deal, the Commission expresses “its intention to tackle all transport emission sources and explains that achieving sustainable transport means providing users with more affordable, accessible, healthier and cleaner alternatives to their current mobility habits.”

    Despite this statement, the Commission has not put forward shifting to walking, cycling, LEVs and public transport as a key element of the Green Deal. LEVA-EU calls upon the Commission and all European institutions to stop ignoring the invaluable EEA advice. We urge the Commission to include that shift as a key element in both the Green Deal Communication and in the announced strategy for sustainable and smart mobility.

    Second, the Commission has announced adaptations of existing legislation, i.e. the AFID and the TEN-T Regulation. We urge the Commission to add the revision of Regulation 168/2013 to this programme. A fast and fundamental revision of this Regulation on the type-approval for L-category vehicles is crucial to remove the many legal bottlenecks, which are currently severely obstructing the deployment of LEVs.

    Last February, at a symposium organized by LEVA-EU and the Belgian project 365SNEL, LEV-manufacturers presented the Commission with a large variety of legal and regulatory problems preventing them from fully exploiting the potential of LEVs. The 365SNEL project, funded by the Flemish Environmental Department, showed that after extensive test riding, 20% of the participants swapped their car for a speed pedelec for commuting.

    At the request of the Commission, the European Council and Parliament decided in 2013 to only exclude electric bicycles with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and 250 W from the L-category. So, most other light electric vehicles are included in technical legislation, which has originally been written for internal combustion engine mopeds and motorcycles.

    The legislation has 1,036 pages of text, to a large extent dedicated to emissions, noise and other technical aspects which are totally irrelevant for light electric vehicles. Manufacturers must figure out which of these 1,036 pages are applicable to, for instance, their speed pedelecs or their E-cargo bikes with more than 250W. And if they manage that all, they then have to go through a totally inaccurate type-approval procedure, which costs at least four times more than what the Commission predicted in their impact assessment before drafting Regulation 168/2013.

    The 365SNEL research has shown that the biggest obstacle to getting more people to consider LEVs is still high prices, yet this price is a direct result of extremely complicated, inaccurate European technical rules.

    Regulation 168/2013 is a significant barrier to European SMEs and choking growth at a key time when the popularity and profile of LEVs as a sustainable form of transport, especially in these COVID-19 times, is set to soar. Europe must not hold back innovation and growth in this sector.

    Categorizing LEVs as mopeds also presents considerable safety issues for riders. Most speed pedelecs for instance are unable to achieve their maximum speed limit of 45 km/h, but rather achieve a maximum cruising speed of 30-35 km/h. Yet, classing them as mopeds forces them off cycle lanes and onto roads among traffic achieving speeds of at least 50km/h. As a result, riders are forced to ride in dangerous conditions, because the speed difference between them and other means of transport is often life-threatening. This is yet another reason for a fundamental review of Regulation 168/2013.

    Last year, an estimated three million e-bikes were sold in the European Union. About 98 per cent of these were e-bikes with pedal assistance up to 25 km/h and 250W, which shows the extent to which the technical legislation for L-category obstructs the development of new types of E-bikes and other LEVs.

    The LEV market holds an exciting future for cities and towns across Europe, but this potential will be lost if we do not make urgent and fundamental alterations to current legislation. LEVA-EU has presented the Commission with a well-founded proposal for legislative change. We would be very pleased to further explain and discuss this proposal.

    Finally, LEVA-EU wishes to rephrase the EEA statement: “Shifting to walking, cycling, light, electric vehicles and public transport is a duty for Europe to meet long-term sustainability goals and policy objectives under the EU Green Deal, in honour of all COVID-19 and air pollution victims.”

    Yours Sincerely,

    Annick Roetynck,
    LEVA-EU Manager