Pingouin Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, Marty Backe said: I consider myself an EUC enthusiast. As such I'll never buy a wheel that limits my speed or places so many regulatory burdens on the design that the fun is sucked out of the wheel. I sure wish we had sales numbers like we do with cars. We know how many BMW's were sold in any particular country. It's a big guessing game with EUC's. I think that there are more sold in Europe than America, but that Asia dwarfs everyone. If that's true the manufacturers probably won't design to the European standards when they can sell them all day long elsewhere. It'll become a black market in Europe, which probably won't be that much of a problem since most people still don't know what they are. I agree with you, I hope that these limits won't be on all EUC, especially if they are very low. Freedom against law & security, it's always a balance, but from what I've seen, taking example on my main hobby (drones), regulations simply killed the hobby for the mass, as it has become very difficult to fly freely, I fear the same will happen to EUC in europe, that's why I think it's the time to have fun with them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OliverH Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Mono said: Yes. To all I know there is overwhelming evidence that speed limits reduce the number of severe accidents. Besides, there are not anymore that many highway mileage in Germany without any speed limit, probably for that very reason. This no-speed-limit-thing in Germany is a political and corporate lobbyist issue, but it's probably also not that a big deal either way. Travelling by car in germany in Germany is nice. I find it relaxing to travel with 180-200 km/h. Speed limits can increase accidents (shown in Sweden decades ago with something arround 90 km/h). Drivers go in "sleep mode" because of the boring low speed. But a car is not self balancing, is on 4 wheels, has 3 circuit brake systems and is build on a special derivate of safety of machinery => automotive safety with Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) based on risk assessments/ categorisation. You can't compare cars and EUCs. A motor failure will not end in an accident/ crash by default. If you look on current products. There're failures because of not tested firmware, soldering and many more. This stuff has no quality management in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingouin Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mono said: Are you honestly believing that the European Union will criminalise these currently legal EUCs in these countries? Yes they can, if they do the same thing they did for drones, in Europe current drones for the most part will all become illegal towards 2018/2019, I believe the same thing could happen to EUC unfortunately :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mono Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Pingouin said: Yes they can, if they do the same thing they did for drones, in Europe current drones for the most part will all become illegal towards 2018/2019, I believe the same thing could happen to EUC unfortunately :/ You avoided to answer the question though. As for drones, what specifically is in the EU law which overwrites existing local law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OliverH Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, Marty Backe said: I consider myself an EUC enthusiast. As such I'll never buy a wheel that limits my speed or places so many regulatory burdens on the design that the fun is sucked out of the wheel. I sure wish we had sales numbers like we do with cars. We know how many BMW's were sold in any particular country. It's a big guessing game with EUC's. I think that there are more sold in Europe than America, but that Asia dwarfs everyone. If that's true the manufacturers probably won't design to the European standards when they can sell them all day long elsewhere. It'll become a black market in Europe, which probably won't be that much of a problem since most people still don't know what they are. I don't think that the Chinese manufacturers will release a PLEV/ safety compliant EUC soon. It's more likely that new non Chinese manufacturers will appear and that market ranking will change complete. If a Chinese manufacturer will lift it's competence/ maturity he can still be part of this game - not without 3rd party help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingouin Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Mono said: You avoided to answer the question though. As for drones, what specifically is in the EU law which overwrites existing local law? What question are you refering to ? The EU directive that is expected to come out around 2018/2019 will restrict flight distance to 150m and height to 50m within the firmware of all of the drones (and a buch of other stuff), and it will overwrite local laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OliverH Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Pingouin said: What question are you refering to ? The EU directive that is expected to come out around 2018/2019 will restrict flight distance to 150m and height to 50m within the firmware of all of the drones (and a buch of other stuff), and it will overwrite local laws. It's very easy in the European community: EU regulation first. If something is not regulated by European Commission national regulation can take place. Harmonising of regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Backe Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Pingouin said: I agree with you, I hope that these limits won't be on all EUC, especially if they are very low. Freedom against law & security, it's always a balance, but from what I've seen, taking example on my main hobby (drones), regulations simply killed the hobby for the mass, as it has become very difficult to fly freely, I fear the same will happen to EUC in europe, that's why I think it's the time to have fun with them There is hope for you though. Drones are super popular and relatively inexpensive. Everyone knows what a drone is so they are on the radar scope of regulators. Most people don't know what an EUC is and probably never will. So even if some EUC laws get passed, enforcement will hopefully be few and far between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve454 Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Pingouin said: The EU directive that is expected to come out around 2018/2019 will restrict flight distance to 150m and height to 50m within the firmware of all of the drones (and a buch of other stuff), and it will overwrite local laws. That is a good thing, the $80 dollar quadcopter that got caught by the wind and flew away over the trees out of sight, never to be found, worried me a lot, thinking that it could come down and hurt somebody. It was so light and small that the damage would have been insignificant, but still. A larger heavier drone could do a lot of damage. These limitations may be directed at the manufacturers. Hopefully they will program some more failsafes in to the cheaper drones that will force them to return to takeoff point in case of any loss of operator control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingouin Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 26 minutes ago, steve454 said: That is a good thing, the $80 dollar quadcopter that got caught by the wind and flew away over the trees out of sight, never to be found, worried me a lot, thinking that it could come down and hurt somebody. It was so light and small that the damage would have been insignificant, but still. A larger heavier drone could do a lot of damage. These limitations may be directed at the manufacturers. Hopefully they will program some more failsafes in to the cheaper drones that will force them to return to takeoff point in case of any loss of operator control. The things you are mentioning can happen only with quadcopters, not drones (drones have GPS, VPS, gyroscopes, accelerometers, IMU and a bunch of other stuff to prevent it from getting caught in the wind). The limitations would not prevent any kind of damage. I am always very surprised that most people now consider drones to be dangerous, although there are very few incidents, and those that occured are due to inexperiences newbies that don't know shit about the laws & limitations. These limitations are not directed by manufacturers because the demandes of the EU market would require a lots of investments in R&D, they will do it if it's necessary but not otherwise. Does airplanes flying over cities worry you ? I am a pilot, I love flying, but I don't see drones as dangerous tools, there is a bigger chance of an airplane falling on somebody and hurting/killing (it actually occurs regularly) them than the same situation for a drone, you shouldn't be scared of drones, they are not evil like most medias show (not talking about military drones) If the weight of the drone is an issue, then why allow +25kg drones to fly unlimited distance while less than 800g drones can only fly 150m ? This is part of the actual legislation (in the US it's 200g) and this proves that the legislators didn't really have safety in mind don't you think ? Most drones have failsafe, the RTH function can only be implemented in quadcopters that have a GPS, but they are becoming more and more poplular. There is a misunderstanding of what is a drone (for example, "drone racing" is a bad name, because they are just quadcopters with no intelligence such as obstacle avoidance and programmed functions) I am not against legislations, but there are already several in place (which includes, not flying above crowded areas, not flying near airports, cities, facilities etc..) so if every drone hobbyist respected the current legislation there would be no issues, but you can't stop people from buying things they don't have the control on, that is why the true hobbyist like me are paying for the mistakes of others :/ 28 minutes ago, Marty Backe said: There is hope for you though. Drones are super popular and relatively inexpensive. Everyone knows what a drone is so they are on the radar scope of regulators. Most people don't know what an EUC is and probably never will. So even if some EUC laws get passed, enforcement will hopefully be few and far between. EUC are becoming more and more popular, for the comparaison with drones, we hear a lot more about drones in the media, but do you often see a drone flying ? I see more EUC riders than drones ^^ A real drone will cost you about 500$ at least (ex dji phantom 3 standard) is it that cheap ? The big thing imho is not to give to EUC a bad name, because it's now the case with drones (it wasn't the case in 2012 when I started), but we can't control every single rider unfortunately :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve454 Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 15 minutes ago, Pingouin said: I am not against legislations, but there are already several in place (which includes, not flying above crowded areas, not flying near airports, cities, facilities etc..) so if every drone hobbyist respected the current legislation there would be no issues, but you can't stop people from buying things they don't have the control on, that is why the true hobbyist like me are paying for the mistakes of others :/ I agree with everything you said, it makes me sad that the few people with no consideration of others cause these accidents and then the government steps in and makes new laws. I guess that technology is getting better so rapidly now, that the government is in panic mode. Especially in the US. I get the feeling that in Europe, people are treated more like adults, and that is one of the things that I don't like about the US. I fear that we here are actually a little dumber than most other places in the world, or that we get fed more propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meepmeepmayer Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 You should stop blaming bad actors, they're not an excuse for overregulation! A proper regulation would be based on scientific facts, not fears of what some buerocrats/angsty old people think could happen. Fact is, nobody (virtually or maybe even literally) got ever seriously injured by someone else's quadcopter drone. Fact is, nobody got ever injured by a person on a EUC at all! From a facts based perspective, there is no need for regulation that goes above any basics (for now). A speed limit for EUCs is ridiculous, especially a low one like 25 km/h (or 32 km/h). Make the speed limits depend on where you drive, not what your vehicle is! A 25 km/h limit on bike lanes or bike paths and 6 km/h on sidewalks is perfectly reasonable (speed limit as in for cars, you aren't allowed to go faster than that, no limit-by-design). You can buy a sports car that can go 300 km/h and slowly drive it through a 10 km/h zone or whatever. Perfectly reasonable. It's not reasonable to expect that car to have a "pedestrian mode" and it's not reasonable to expect that of other vehicles. Why should EUCs (or any vehicles) have a built in speed limit? What's wrong with having motorbike-like EUCs that can go on regular roads and go 100 km/h if these turn out useful? (you can have all the other requirements - license plate, helmet, insurance, etc if they are justified) - and if they're small and light enough, you could still take them 10 km/h on bike lanes and everyone is happy. As Marty said, this sucks the fun out of EUCs and cripples them, limiting their different variants from being a useful tool for so many situation (anything from kids toy to one-wheeled motorbike) into a niche toy that's useless for so many serious uses. It's effectively a blanket ban, this is in no way justified. Why can I buy a racing bike and go 60 km/h on a regular road, and also take it on a leisurely 10 km/h bike ride on a bike path, but EUCs (or e-bikes, or e-scooters, or anything) are suddenly evil and must be physically limited to speeds that ruin their usefulness, banned from roads, etc? And some inconsiderate asshole who rams old grandmas and strollers on the sidewalk is no excuse for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Backe Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 hour ago, meepmeepmayer said: You should stop blaming bad actors, they're not an excuse for overregulation! A proper regulation would be based on scientific facts, not fears of what some buerocrats/angsty old people think could happen. Fact is, nobody (virtually or maybe even literally) got ever seriously injured by someone else's quadcopter drone. Fact is, nobody got ever injured by a person on a EUC at all! From a facts based perspective, there is no need for regulation that goes above any basics (for now). A speed limit for EUCs is ridiculous, especially a low one like 25 km/h (or 32 km/h). Make the speed limits depend on where you drive, not what your vehicle is! A 25 km/h limit on bike lanes or bike paths and 6 km/h on sidewalks is perfectly reasonable (speed limit as in for cars, you aren't allowed to go faster than that, no limit-by-design). You can buy a sports car that can go 300 km/h and slowly drive it through a 10 km/h zone or whatever. Perfectly reasonable. It's not reasonable to expect that car to have a "pedestrian mode" and it's not reasonable to expect that of other vehicles. Why should EUCs (or any vehicles) have a built in speed limit? What's wrong with having motorbike-like EUCs that can go on regular roads and go 100 km/h if these turn out useful? (you can have all the other requirements - license plate, helmet, insurance, etc if they are justified) - and if they're small and light enough, you could still take them 10 km/h on bike lanes and everyone is happy. As Marty said, this sucks the fun out of EUCs and cripples them, limiting their different variants from being a useful tool for so many situation (anything from kids toy to one-wheeled motorbike) into a niche toy that's useless for so many serious uses. It's effectively a blanket ban, this is in no way justified. Why can I buy a racing bike and go 60 km/h on a regular road, and also take it on a leisurely 10 km/h bike ride on a bike path, but EUCs (or e-bikes, or e-scooters, or anything) are suddenly evil and must be physically limited to speeds that ruin their usefulness, banned from roads, etc? And some inconsiderate asshole who rams old grandmas and strollers on the sidewalk is no excuse for that! Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US69 Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 17 hours ago, Marty Backe said: That's what's crazy. Why impose speed limits slower than what a bicyclist does? Typically only my Monster can keep up with many bicyclists that I see on the various river trails. But may in Europe they have speed limits on bikes too? In Germany it is like this: You can have an (pedal supported) e-bike with max 250W and max 25kmh without any Registration and so on. You can have a more powerful e-bike with max 40kmh, you just then Need it to be insuranced and a small number plate for it..... I can not say how this is for the rest of europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mono Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 21 hours ago, Pingouin said: What question are you refering to ? The EU directive that is expected to come out around 2018/2019 will restrict flight distance to 150m and height to 50m within the firmware of all of the drones (and a buch of other stuff), and it will overwrite local laws. The question was whether one expects the EU to criminalise the currently legal EUC in Belgium, Norway,... To restrict the flight height of unlicensed privately operated drones seems perfectly reasonable legislation to me. I assume by "flight distance" you mean the distance to the pilot, with which I also don't see much wrong. 19 hours ago, Pingouin said: Does airplanes flying over cities worry you ? I am a pilot, I love flying, but I don't see drones as dangerous tools, there is a bigger chance of an airplane falling on somebody and hurting/killing (it actually occurs regularly) them than the same situation for a drone, you shouldn't be scared of drones, they are not evil like most medias show (not talking about military drones) If the weight of the drone is an issue, then why allow +25kg drones to fly unlimited distance while less than 800g drones can only fly 150m ? This is part of the actual legislation (in the US it's 200g) and this proves that the legislators didn't really have safety in mind don't you think ? The main concern with drones specifically is, AFAICS, not physical safety but privacy. For this reason, I believe, the law tries to legislate small (or even tiny) fully autonomous drones. 15 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said: A proper regulation would be based on scientific facts, not fears of what some buerocrats/angsty old people think could happen. Fact is, nobody (virtually or maybe even literally) got ever seriously injured by someone else's quadcopter drone. Fact is, nobody got ever injured by a person on a EUC at all! From a facts based perspective, there is no need for regulation that goes above any basics (for now). Well, I don't think you have any knowledge whether these "fact" claims are actually true. I fully agree that the precautionary principle can do more harm than good. Yet to me it seems perfectly reasonable and often even preferable to make legislation based on well founded (and sometimes obvious) predictions. 15 hours ago, meepmeepmayer said: Why should EUCs (or any vehicles) have a built in speed limit? What's wrong with having motorbike-like EUCs that can go on regular roads and go 100 km/h if these turn out useful? Nothing wrong with that, if they are regulated like mopeds and motorbikes with comparable power and abilities. Everything wrong with that if they could be operated in public without a type approval, a driver license or insurance. 5 hours ago, KingSong69 said: You can have a more powerful e-bike with max 40kmh, you just then Need it to be insuranced and a small number plate for it..... AFAIK you also need a driver license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingouin Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, Mono said: The main concern with drones specifically is, AFAICS, not physical safety but privacy. For this reason, I believe, the law tries to legislate small (or even tiny) fully autonomous drones. The thing is, there are already privacy laws in place, we are not allowed to take pictures of someone without his/her permission, we are not allowed to fly closer than 50m from a person, we are not allowed to use footage with someone that is recognizable even if we had all the authorisations to fly where we did...I think that there is enough legislations in place regarding drones, it might not be the case for EUC, but there are only a few EUC riders, and if we let them go too far, we might end with abusive restrictions. It's always easy to say it's for safety or privacy, and most of the time, because of selfish people, it doesn't bother anyone, but by letting legislators do what they want and showing no opposition, we are going straight to a wall. The Federal Aviation Agency of europe did ask to the concerned persons to give their opinion, but when I answered there question, they asked me what where the coordinates of my flying location, adresse etc...this is against privacy don't you think ? BTW is the 50m height max limitation is fine to you, you do know that no aircraft are allowed under 150m, that is why before the max height was 150m AGL. The reason that was put forward for this new restriction was "if it can fly higher then it it falls one someone it will do more damage than if it was lower..." so if the safety concerns were not at stakes, then why this argument ? Plus because we are not allowed to fly near people, there should not be any issues with the current height limit ... That is why I think we should not let the legislators act as they want when they are most of the time badly informed about the real abilities of something, like the legal semi-auto firearm ban proposal from Europe after the tragic events in Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mono Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, Pingouin said: The thing is, there are already privacy laws in place, we are not allowed to take pictures of someone without his/her permission, we are not allowed to fly closer than 50m from a person, we are not allowed to use footage with someone that is recognizable even if we had all the authorisations to fly where we did That doesn't change the privacy concern though. A law is worth nothing if it is unenforcable, at least to some extend. It is impossible to enforce that drones don't take pictures with private information on them. 8 minutes ago, Pingouin said: It's always easy to say it's for safety or privacy, and most of the time, because of selfish people, it doesn't bother anyone, I think in the case of drones the privacy concern is valid and huge. Drones will very soon have the size of flies (the insects). Single individuals will be able to operate hundreds or thousands or ten thousands of them. If legal, they will be behind you when you withdraw money at a cash machine, they will... I am not at all sure the law will prevent all this to happen anyway, but it seems at least it is worth a try. 6 minutes ago, Pingouin said: The Federal Aviation Agency of europe did ask to the concerned persons to give their opinion, but when I answered there question, they asked me what where the coordinates of my flying location, adresse etc...this is against privacy don't you think ? As long as one is not obliged to answer, I don't know why asking a question "is against privacy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingouin Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Mono said: That doesn't change the privacy concern though. A law is worth nothing if it is unenforcable, at least to some extend. It is impossible to enforce that drones don't take pictures with private information on them. I think in the case of drones the privacy concern is valid and huge. Drones will very soon have the size of flies (the insects). Single individuals will be able to operate hundreds or thousands or ten thousands of them. If legal, they will be behind you when you withdraw money at a cash machine, they will... I am not at all sure the law will prevent all this to happen anyway, but it seems at least it is worth a try. As long as one is not obliged to answer, I don't know why asking a question "is against privacy". Then you are contradicting yourself, because if drones are the size of an insect, and so, undetectable, the law sill be unenforcable, but like I said, there is already a privacy law protecting people so those who are actually filming others without there permission (with drones or anything else) could face their responsabilities. The drone concern about privacy is huge while there aren't that many people actually violating privacy laws.. Because in the forumula you had to answer the question in order to complete it, but this was clearly dissuasive for some people, so they knew that ther were putting a barrier to have fewer people answering this poll. Maybe it's logical for you, but for me it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mono Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 2 hours ago, Pingouin said: Then you are contradicting yourself, because if drones are the size of an insect, and so, undetectable, the law sill be unenforcable Drones of any size are much easier to detect than to detect whether they make an illegal picture. Also, when detected, illegal drones can be removed or confiscated with less concern, as people know that they are not legal. There can also be restrictions to sell them. I wrote and meant unenforcable, I did not mean difficult to enforce. 2 hours ago, Pingouin said: The drone concern about privacy is huge while there aren't that many people actually violating privacy laws.. I think you are right, but I also think it is rather easy to foresee that this will change. 2 hours ago, Pingouin said: Maybe it's logical for you, but for me it isn't. Right, it's neither logical nor, IMHO, reasonable. It's just not a very problematic invasion of privacy in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingouin Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 Ok, I think we could discuss this all day long and still not agree on several issues, I'm sorry for bringing in the drones, as the initial discussion was about the legal definition of speed limit ^^ My final thoughts about EUC speed would be, they are very few reported accidents, so maybe riders are reasonable for the most part, and so we would not need any further restrictions, because it's obvious than even if the speed limits is put to 18kph, most accidents seems to occure at low speeds with EUC, so we will never be able to have a "zero risk" situation, like with everything else, so maybe sometimes it's ok to let things be.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OliverH Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 On 3.3.2017 at 9:45 PM, Pingouin said: Ok, I think we could discuss this all day long and still not agree on several issues, I'm sorry for bringing in the drones, as the initial discussion was about the legal definition of speed limit ^^ My final thoughts about EUC speed would be, they are very few reported accidents, so maybe riders are reasonable for the most part, and so we would not need any further restrictions, because it's obvious than even if the speed limits is put to 18kph, most accidents seems to occure at low speeds with EUC, so we will never be able to have a "zero risk" situation, like with everything else, so maybe sometimes it's ok to let things be.. With higher speeds you're in the type approval category. Much more requirements and one wheel self balancing needs to be defined first for this category (L1e derivat). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve454 Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 5 hours ago, Pingouin said: That is why I think we should not let the legislators act as they want when they are most of the time badly informed about the real abilities of something, like the legal semi-auto firearm ban proposal from Europe after the tragic events in Paris. That is very interesting, I think most people are not aware that any gun with the capacity of more than one bullet can be fired as fast as you can pull the trigger. So imagine how fast you can pull the trigger, it is almost as fast a fully automatic. Semi automatic is for all intents and purposes almost as fast as fully automatic, you just have to squeeze the trigger a lot of times, not just once. Probably three times a second, until the bullets run out or the magazine is empty. I discovered that a pump shotgun with the trigger pulled will fire as fast as you can pump it. Five shots in less than two seconds. The local gun range prohibits rapid firing like that because it sounds like automatic weapons. I think the legislators want to keep the public badly informed about the real abilities of a lot of things, because it gives them more power over us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OliverH Posted March 4, 2017 Share Posted March 4, 2017 On 3.3.2017 at 0:37 AM, Mono said: But you do understand what the problem is, right? My feeling is that you are way too smart to not see the problem when looked through the lenses of a non EUC rider or a legislator. Hasn't the current legislation in Norway, Belgium, I believe Denmark (and probably elsewhere) proven your point wrong? Unsafe, non-redundant EUCs are legal in these countries. Are you honestly believing that the European Union will criminalise these currently legal EUCs in these countries? As I don't know on which base they defined it legal I can't answer it. Safety of Machinery is base of all regulations in the EU. Does Norway has a product safety law? What's written in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaissanceMan Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 On 2.3.2017 at 9:17 PM, em1barns said: @Jason McNeil, @OliverH, @RenaissanceMan, any take on this? Thanks in advance to everyone for your thoughts. Hi @em1barns! When we look at speed regulations of other types of vehicles it is obvious that speed limits are specific to the location, road conditions, traffic etc. So it only makes sense to apply that rule to EUCs as well, eg. max. 6 km/h on sidewalks, 25km/h on bicycle lanes, 30km/h on roads, etc. The enforcement of speed limits will as usual be the responsibilty of traffic police but of course not of EUC manufacturers. Because of the physics of EUCs they should technically be capable of running at least the maximum speed allowed in their country plus some safety margin of eg. 5 - 10 km/h. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizardmech Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 Speed limit regulation is silly 25km/h is too fast for footpaths and too slow for some situations on a bikepath or road. Depending on the French elections the EU is as likely to not exist as it is to finish EUC regulations, manufacturers will be hesitant to invest in a theoretical EU standard given the political uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.