Tuning chips and legalities

[AUbicycles]

Watching some youtube videos a UK video advert for tuning chips for ebikes appeared. Came across as self explanatory and the idea that using a modified bike was not a notion. For BNA I have rejected advertising offers as I don’t agree with the principle.

I am curious about the legalities, which likely is different across jurisdictions.

Selling Chips - likely legal to sell - and a disclaimer I assume they adds tries to put them out of fault ... i.e. I assume they say the bike can not longer be used if not lawful.

Liability - if someone modified and caused an accident - the rider has liability, what anout the chip seller? I assume no or little liability, a modified bike could also be used on private property.

Although there is a use-case for private use, modifications would void warranty.

The underlying issue is that these tuning chips easy bypass the legalities in their sales pitch so naive buyers could be misled. But I would hope that is a minority, so many should assume that modifying is not quite right. With the popularity if ebikes, will tuning become a problem?

[rkelsen]

Seriously! Wow.

Didn't even know this was a thing until I saw this post.

There really is no limit to human stupidity, is there. The kind of person who wants this is the exact kind of person who shouldn't have it... Then again, if not for things like this the Darwin awards wouldn't exist I guess.

Good on you for holding your ground Boss!

[RonK]

With the popularity if ebikes, will tuning become a problem?

I doubt it. The major manufacturers now include algorithms in the electronics to detect when an e-bike has been tuned. In fact I think it is a requirement now.
No doubt the tuners will continue finding ways to defeat anti-tuning measures but the manufacturers will catch up fairly quickly.

[find_bruce]

Tuning is a weasel word used to disguise what is really being done, which is to modify the system to remove or bypass one or more of the limitations on the performance of the motor

• remove the 25km/h speed limit for power assist
• remove the requirement to pedal to get power
• increase the power above 250w

This is one area of the law that is surprisingly consistent across Australia as it based on adoption of the European standard.

It is unlikely that the police will detect that you have modified the bike, but occasionally they do - its one of those low probability, high consequence situations - if your bike no longer meets the standard, it is an unlicensed motorbike & the "on-the-spot" fines are staggering - up around $2,000 in NSW.

As AUbicycles mentioned, one consequence is that it will create warranty issues. IIRC a poster on here discovered that a retailer would no longer service the bike once it had been modified.

Where it is more likely to be detected is in the event of a collision. Any insurance you have is likely to void, or at least avoided, on the basis that insurance covers a bicycle & once modified, it isn't.

Your liability to another party is more complex - it won't automatically mean the collision is all your fault, but it will probably increase the extent to which you are found to have contributed to the cause of the collision.

[zebee]

I would point you to www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2016/160.html

THe rider bought a kit for his bike that was illegally overpowered. The court accepted he didn't know it was, I suspect the case would have been different if he had known. They did note that the bike was not legally on the shared path where the crash occurred because it was not a legal e-bike.

HOwever, the bike did have a 25kmh limit on the controller, and this is important because it is part of how they decided what the actual speed on the shared path probably was. This is important because of stopping distance. Did he have time to see the car that was reversing out of the driveway over the path? (this has relevance to the discussion elsewhere about the Uber rider and the motorcycle)

The case is fascinating as to how the judge works out what happened. SPeeds and sightlines and timing, which all lead to amount of responsibility. The section on contributory negligence is the bit we are most interested in. The rider was considered to have fault because he hadn't checked on the legality of the bike and so didn't know it's power, even though it was speed limited that was considered negligent. So someone who did know and deliberately made it so would be even more negligent. " As a consequence I consider that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety." But also: "The question then becomes: did the fact that the bicycle had an electric motor capable of producing 500W as opposed to 200W make any difference? I am not satisfied that the defendants have proved that it did."

So when it come to the civil cases about who pays, it's a lot more nuanced than "it was illegal".

Zebee

[eldavo]

I had spotted that case when a legal firm were using it as a FB clickbait blog post attracting clientele with the headline:

“I bought a Jeep” – now do I bear a greater responsibility to smaller vehicles on the roadway?
I looked at it from a lack of hierarchy of duty of care, where vulnerable users are in a "might is right" disadvamtage / handicap. Compared to the Shared Path where cyclists have a duty of care to pedestrians, however moving across to the road, it is not reciprocated by motor vehicles to cyclists.

Due to the financial stakes of $12m against a motor vehicle insurer, it is much less indicative of the criminal justice people with delimiters etc. would experience hitting a pedestrian on shared path, rather than hitting a Jeep.

The BNA principle is wise and would be widely supported.

[zebee]

Due to the financial stakes of $12m against a motor vehicle insurer, it is much less indicative of the criminal justice people with delimiters etc. would experience hitting a pedestrian on shared path, rather than hitting a Jeep.

The BNA principle is wise and would be widely supported.

That case wasn't criminal though, it was civil. It was about who pays. Criminal is different with different requirements. If you ride an unregistered motorcycle then you get the criminal penalties associated with that - ride unregistered, ride uninsured, and probably ride unlicensed. If you hit someone then you may well get manner dangerous or similar but the unregistered bit doesn't affect any penalty for bad driving.

But when the insurance company or the uninsured other party comes for you, then the legality isn't as important as who was more negligent. If you are riding one of those "locally made tariff protected" 750W things but were not doing more than 25 and the speed of acceleration wasn't a factor the quoted case implies that your negligence total might increase but not by a lot. Going to depend a lot on how much speed and braking were important.

On the other hand if you have disabled your speed limiter and the opposition are able to show you were going too fast then your negligence total will increase by a lot. I have no idea if you can say "Guys at the local bike club do 30kmh+ so speeds can be high on non-e-bikes so speed is irrelevant" but I guess you could try...

The Uber/Harley case will depend a lot on timing I expect. How much time elapsed between motorcycle putting wheel on footpath, and bicycle hitting it? Enough for the Uber rider to brake? To brake a bit? To stop? How fast was the Uber tider going? What were the sightlines for the Harley rider?

The sightline from my driveway to the footpath on the right side is very poor. I have to stop with front wheel just next to the fence on powered or unpowered 2 wheeler to check for peds or bikes as while footpath riding is illegal in NSW people do it such as bottle scavengers. (And me, as I ride on the footpath to do the 10m between letterboxes and driveway). I still can't see all that well but a) the peds see me and b) if someone is haring down the footpath on foot or wheels the stopping time means they'll pass me or see me. If I hit a ped I'd have to show I'd stopped and checked for one, if I hit a bicycle I could say I didn't expect one unless someone finds this post...

(I'm in more danger from runners than cyclists, the footpath riders here are dawdlers especially the scavengers)

Zebee