The European Commission has, following an ECJ decision, decided to allow classification of all Electric Power Assisted Bicycles (EPAC/Pedelec) as a “motor vehicle" within the scope of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive. If it were to become law it would make it mandatory for all riders to have third party motor vehicle insurance despite the vast majority already having insurance through, household, personal liability, or transport insurance.

The Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive (MID) ensures that when a vehicle is insured for third party liability in one of the Member States, this cover must apply in the territory of all Member States. ECF very much supports this Directive as a way of ensuring cyclists that are involved in crashes with a motor vehicle will have reliable access to compensation from personal and material damages across the EU.

The current definition of ‘motor vehicle’ is “…any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled;” Most Member States have interpreted this to mean motorized vehicles (cars, lorries, vans, etc.) being used in traffic. However, after a claim dispute in Slovenia, a European Court of Justice Decision interpreted ‘motor vehicle’ to mean a vehicle which is propelled by mechanical power, that is used that is consistent “with its normal function” would require compulsory insurance. With regards to place this would include all public and private space. With regards to vehicle type this would include any vehicle that has any motorized propulsion which would include pedelecs and eBikes of all types.

The European Commission new proposal

Given the confusion that this ECJ decision brought, the European Commission decided to review and update the Directive. After meeting with the Commission on many occasions our suggestions have fallen on deaf ears and the effect of obligatory Motor Insurance for pedelecs on transport, the environment, health, social issues were not taken into their impact assessment. Nor have the Commission used this opportunity to update the Directive in line with these new vehicles and their muscle powered propulsion and have instead merely re-iterated the ECJ decision.

Released on the 24^th May the commission proposal adds a ‘use of vehicle’ definition to clarify what is in scope, these two sentences are now the Commission’s attempt to define motor vehicle in the context of the MID;

“1. ‘vehicle’ means any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled;

1a. ‘use of a vehicle’ means any use of such vehicle, intended normally to serve as a means of transport, that is consistent with the normal function of that vehicle, irrespective of the vehicle's characteristics and irrespective of the terrain on which the motor vehicle is used and of whether it is stationary or in motion."

This means that any vehicle with any type of motor, active or not, on any type of ground being used as a mode of transport which is its intended use is classified as a motor vehicle and would be banned from using the roads unless they enter the Motor Insurance regime.

The current directive does allow Member States to exempt certain vehicles^[1] from the requirement provided that the general pool of insured vehicles also covers 3rd party liability for them. However, this would lead to a patchwork of European legislation across the EU, would confuse public authorities, and the use of the bike for tourists more difficult. Bottom line we need a clear definition of the scope for what sort of motor vehicle this legislation is aimed at. Given the confusion that this ECJ decision brought, the European Commission decided to review and update the Directive. Unfortunately, they did not take into account the effect on transport, the environment, health, social issues into their impact assessment or take this opportunity to update the directive in line with these new vehicles and their muscle powered propulsion and merely re-iterated the ECJ decision.

Pedelecs currently illegal?

The Commission goes further, it claims that this has always been the case; in its introduction to the proposal it claims that the current Motor Vehicle Insurance[2] should include pedelecs because it has some type of motor. Despite not one pedelec user across the EU having motor insurance, despite no product being available for this, and despite no Member State including pedelecs in this sort of insurance regime, the Commission deems this state of affairs acceptable and is happy to ground all pedelecs without a huge shift in 10 million pedelec users to a stiffer insurance regime.

ECF believes that this would be a gross error, that it is an over-regulatory burden on a growing and healthy, environmentally beneficial mode of transport that would create a barrier for users and increase administrative burden on public authorities. It could lead to a reduction in the number of EPAC users and act as a barrier to the continued growth of these bikes. The European Commission has stated that there would be no environmental, social, nor health consequences if the scope were to be widened. We believe that this is erroneous and that the impact assessment necessary for the Refit Programme should reviewed the impact that a barrier to EPAC growth would have meant

This can be changed

The good news is, this can be changed. This is a Commission proposal only and it requires the European Parliament and the Member States to work on it. They can either rubber stamp it (not good), throw it out completely (not necessary, other changes should be useful for this important piece of legislation), or they can amend it (the most likely option).

We call on MEPs and Member States to define what the EU intends with this piece of legislation. Does it really believe that pedelec bicycles are motor vehicles and should be treated the same as 200 horsepower, 1.5 tonne vehicles? Do all those countries that are currently giving away subsidies for buying pedelecs want to take away the benefits by adding hundreds of euros of costs? Cities, public authorities, and advocacy organisations for that matter are betting on pedelecs being a key ingredient to bring about a revolution in urban mobility solutions. An over-regulated pedelec sector would be a disaster for this potential.

We ask for the European Parliament and Council to correct this to specifically define “motor vehicle” and exempt pedelecs from Motor Insurance Directive. We believe there are options here either with

• a list of vehicles to exclude;
• or referencing of other appropriate EU legislation such as type approval;
• or defining a motor vehicle as being “solely propelled by mechanical power”

We will contact all our members, networks and cycling public in the near future to coordinate activity on this issue. In the meantime, you can search for your MEP here where you can ask her/him on their thoughts on this issue! http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/search.html