Introduction

In 2024, the Department for Transport (DfT) ran a public consultation proposing changes to legislation concerning electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPCs) or ‘e-cycles’. 

The proposed changes were part of the previous government’s Smarter Regulation programme, which had a focus on reducing regulatory burdens and driving economic growth.

Our consultation sought opinions on 2 potential changes to legislation for EAPCs:

• to amend the legal definition of how EAPCs are classified so that the maximum continuous rated power of the electric motor must not exceed 500 watts (W) instead of 250W
• to allow ‘twist and go’ EAPCs to have throttle assistance up to 15.5 miles per hour (mph) – 25 kilometres per hour (km/h) – without the need for type approval

Consultation responses

We received a total of 2,121 responses to the consultation: 1,816 responses were via the online survey and 305 were via email. There were also a small number of responses sent by post.

Of the responses received, 57 were from main stakeholder organisations. ‘Main’ stakeholders are organisations we have identified as those most likely to be impacted by the consultation proposals.

Of the 57 main stakeholders, 12 were local authorities or local authority transport bodies. 45 were from other affected organisations including:

• police forces
• fire and rescue services
• active travel organisations
• safety organisations
• retailers and suppliers of EAPCs and pedal cycles
• delivery and logistics companies
• other relevant bodies

Email responses

In cases where the same email address has been used to submit a response via the online survey and via email, we have discounted the email response. In cases where we have received more than 1 email response from the same organisation, we have only taken the first response.

Some email responses did not follow the exact question format asked and presented their response differently to the survey system. Where appropriate, we have:

• supplied the survey system summary data
• included a summary of email responses, where those responses clearly align with the questions asked

In addition, we received 107 email responses against the proposals that were identical (or near identical) in wording. These emails made up more than a third of the emails we received during the consultation period. We have reproduced the text from those emails within the section on consultation questions below.

Names of organisations have been omitted to maintain the privacy of individuals and potential sole traders.

About the respondent

We asked: are you responding on behalf of an organisation?

Table 1: responses to question 1

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of the total responses
Yes	175	8.25%
No	1946	91.75%

Of the 175 responses received on behalf of organisations, we considered 57 to be the main stakeholders most likely to be impacted by the proposals.

While we are not discounting the input of all organisations that took the time to respond, we believe it is reasonable for DfT to give greater consideration to organisations that are likely to have greater knowledge relevant to the consultation questions.

We asked: what is your age?

Table 2: responses to question 2

Age	Number of responses	Percentage of the total responses
Under 18	4	0.24%
18 to 24	72	4.25%
25 to 34	207	12.23%
35 to 44	255	15.06%
45 to 54	339	20.02%
55 to 65	422	24.93%
Over 65	394	23.27%

432 respondents did not answer this question.

Location

We asked: where do you live?

Table 3: responses to question 3

Country	Number of responses	Percentage of the total response
England	1423	84.35%
Scotland	147	8.71%
Wales	96	5.69%
Other	21	1.24%

129 respondents did not answer this question.

We asked: If you live in England, which region do you live in?

Table 4: responses to question 4

Region	Number of responses	Percentage of the total response
East Midlands	123	8.60%
East of England	136	9.51%
London	279	19.51%
North East	39	2.73%
North West	151	10.56%
South East	268	18.74%
South West	209	14.62%
West Midlands	90	6.29%
Yorkshire and Humber	135	9.44%

692 respondents did not answer this question.

Organisation size and type

We asked: what is the employee size of your organisation?

Table 4: responses to question 4

Company size (employees)	Number of responses	Percentage of the total response
1 to 25	76	60.32%
26 to 50	5	3.97%
51 to 100	8	6.35%
101 to 250	13	10.32%
251 to 1,000	6	4.76%
Over 1,000	18	14.29%

1,995 respondents did not answer this question. Of the 175 organisations identified earlier, only 126 provided employee numbers.

We asked: are you a membership organisation?

Table 5: responses to question 5

	Number of responses	Percentage of the total responses
Yes	51	37.50%
No	85	62.50%

1,985 respondents did not answer this question.

We asked: how many members do you represent?

Table 6: responses to question 6

Organisation size (members)	Number of responses	Percentage of the total response
1 to 25	8	17.78%
26 to 50	1	2.22%
51 to 100	5	11.11%
101 to 250	11	24.44%
251 to 1,000	11	24.44%
Over 1,000	9	20.00%

2,076 respondents did not answer this question.

We asked: what best describes your organisation?

Table 7: responses from question 7

Organisation type	Number of responses	Percentage of the total response
Active travel organisation	24	13.71%
Disabled people organisation	5	2.86%
E-cycle retailer	51	29.14%
E-cycle representative	11	6.29%
Pedal cycle retailer	26	14.86%
Pedal cycle representative	10	5.71%
Freight industry (including e-cargo bike operators)	5	2.86%
Insurance industry	0	0.00%
Local government	14	8.00%
Other type of organisation	77	44.00%

1,946 respondents did not answer this question. Those replying were able to select multiple answers.

Responses to questions about maximum continuous rated power

We asked: do you support or oppose the proposed change to how EAPCs are classified so that the maximum continuous rated power of the electric motor must not exceed 500W instead of 250W as set out in the current regulations?

Table 8: responses to question 8

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of the total response
Support	1,009	47.62%
Oppose	1,088	51.34%
Don’t know	22	1.04%

2 respondents did not answer this question. 

We have excluded:

• results of a follow up question that asked if those against or undecided wanted to continue answering questions
• responses to a follow up question asking for supporting evidence to their stated view, of which 9 respondents uploaded information. This information was considered but we have concluded that it did not add significantly to the evidence

107 emails from respondents opposed to the proposals contained an identical, or near identical, form of wording. The wording was: 

I oppose both proposed changes to the EAPC regulations. (1) It is unnecessary. The current regulations work well overall. (2) It is risky. Short-term, it will drive customers to order high fire risk products online and/or to tamper with existing e-bikes. Longer-term, it risks moped-style regulations on the whole e-bike category. There are also as yet unquantified risks from more powerful, heavier e-bikes sharing cycle lanes. Allowing full speed throttles risks e-bikes losing the health benefits of active travel. (3) It is the wrong approach. If this must be done, create a new category for 500W throttle vehicles under a new LZEV framework, and leave EAPCs as they are.

We asked: if implemented, what do you think are the benefits of increasing e-cycles to 500W?

Table 9: responses to question 9

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of those that selected this answer
Support riding up hills and gradients	949	95.76%
Support use of e-cycles as a mobility aid by disabled people	774	78.10%
Support use of e-cycles by older people	808	81.53%
Support use of e-cycles by people who are less physically fit	844	85.17%
Support use of e-cargo bikes	831	83.85%
Reduced cost of e-cycles	310	31.24%
Reduced incentive to tamper with e-cycles	543	54.79%
Improved health outcomes	622	62.76%
Reduced emissions	811	81.84%
Reduced congestion	792	79.92%
Road safety benefits	558	56.31%
Other reason	135	13.62%

1,130 respondents did not answer this question. Those replying were able to select multiple answers.

Responses from those who selected ‘other reason’ covered the following themes:

• support for utility journeys (for example, commuting, being better able to carry luggage or pull a trailer) 
• enabling regulation in Great Britain to keep pace with other countries that allow for more powerful e-cycles 
• to support modal shift from more polluting vehicles

Amongst main stakeholders, responses from those in favour of the proposal covered the following themes:

• increased power having benefits for e-cargo bikes (for example, making it easier to climb steep gradients while transporting heavier loads)  
• that scaled up e-cargo bike operations could support modal shift from more polluting vehicles
• this could facilitate an expanded e-cycle rental sector, with comparisons drawn with international jurisdictions, where e-cycles are not subject to the same power restrictions

We have not included responses to the follow-up question that gave individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence in support of their response. A total of 6 respondents uploaded evidence.

We considered the information provided and recorded 3 specific pieces of evidence, which were:

1. Information about e-cycle power limits in Ontario, where EAPCs up to 500W are permissible.

2. A major logistics operator currently operating several large hubs in the UK anticipates that electric cargo bikes and walkers may make over two million deliveries to customers across the UK every year. E-cargo bikes used in their operations are currently limited by incline with the current motor power of 250W. Therefore, some cities and geographies have been identified as unsuitable for e-cargo bike deployment due to gradient constraints. This is a limiting factor of the current regulation and an increase in motor power could unlock deployment in these locations.

3. Logistics research shows light goods vehicles (LGV) deliveries are not usually made in vans at full load capacity, whereas e-cargo bike journeys tend to be much nearer full load capacity. This has the effect of exaggerating the carbon saving of deliveries by LGV courier when set against mileage and underestimating the savings achieved by e-cargo logistics. Increased power will encourage more logistics providers to switch to e-cargo as more mileage and weight are possible and hillier terrain becomes more accessible.

We asked: if implemented, what do you think are the risks of increasing e-cycles to 500W?

Table 10: responses to question 10

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of those that selected this answer
More severe collisions with e-cargo bikes	122	19.18%
Increased number of collisions with e-cargo bikes	83	13.05%
Increased road safety risks due to greater acceleration and overtaking	133	20.91%
Increased road safety risks due to higher uncapped speed if tampered with	221	34.75%
Increased fire safety risks	90	14.15%
Reduced health benefits	92	14.46%
Risks to road safety	94	14.78%
Other reason	255	40.09%

1,485 respondents did not answer this question. Those that did reply were able to select multiple answers.

Responses from those selecting ‘another reason’ included:

• the risk of conflating e-cycles with other forms of micromobility 
• a concern that the police may be less able to distinguish between road legal EAPCs and other vehicles 
• that more powerful e-cycles would not be suited to existing active travel infrastructure 
• potentially unsafe interaction between more powerful EAPCs and horse riders, as well as broader impacts on the countryside
• risk that UK manufacturers focus and relocate to the European market as a result of British divergence from regulations on e-cycles within the European Union

Among main stakeholders, responses from those opposing the proposal suggested that it was unnecessary and lacked evidence to suggest that the stated aim, making e-cycles more attractive and accessible, would be achieved.

There was also concern that:

• the country could become an outlier when compared to the European market 
• the proposal risked exacerbating issues around fire safety, for example as a result of consumers purchasing larger and poorer quality batteries  
• there was a potentially increased risk of more frequent and severe collisions due to the increased weight of more powerful EAPCs 

Suggestions from main stakeholders towards addressing these risks included:

• greater consumer education 
•  research to better understand the case for change and to allow manufacturers time to develop, test and produce safer products 
• additional regulatory changes, such as limitations on torque and gross weight, of more powerful EAPCs

There were 2 follow-up questions responses that have not been included. These gave respondents the opportunity to upload any evidence in support of their earlier responses.

Only 1 respondent uploaded evidence in response to the first question and 13 respondents uploaded evidence to the second. We considered the information but concluded that, with 2 exceptions, it did not add significantly to the evidence.  
The relevant evidence provided in the follow-up questions included:

• a study from Norway on accidents experienced by e-cycle users
• an article on the power output of cyclists

We asked: would you, despite your original opposition, support or oppose the implementation of the 500 Watt increase proposal in an alternative format?

Table 11: responses to question 11

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of the total responses
Support	234	28.09%
Oppose	468	56.18%
Don’t know	131	15.73%

833 respondents replied to this question. Respondents were prompted to reply based on their earlier response where they indicated their opposition to the proposal to increase the power limit for EAPCs.

We asked: would you support the alternative proposal for disabled people or e-cargo bike users?

Table 12: responses to question 12

User	Number of responses	Percentage of respondents that selected this answer
Disabled users	148	62.25%
E-cargo bike users	207	88.46%

234 respondents replied to this question and were able to select more than 1 answer.

We asked: in your view, the eligibility criteria for disabled people to use e-cycles with the increased rated power of up to 500W would be based on them having a particular long-term condition or illness linked to:

• mobility
• muscle weakness
• stamina and fatigue
• cardiovascular and breathing issues
• health in another way

We asked: in your view, the eligibility criteria for disabled people to use e-cycles with the increased rated power of up to 500W would be based on them having a particular long-term condition or illness linked to:

• mobility
• muscle weakness
• stamina and fatigue
• cardiovascular and breathing issues
• health in another way

Table 13: responses to question about long-term conditions

Long-term condition	Respondents who said yes	Respondents who said no	Respondents who said don’t know	Total
Mobility	131 (90.9%)	7 (4.9%)	6 (4.2%)	144 (100%)
Muscle weakness	123 (87.2%)	13 (20.2%)	5 (3.5%)	141 (100%)
Stamina and fatigue	99 (71.2%)	28 (20.1%)	12 (8.6%)	139 (100%)
Cardiovascular and breathing issues	102 (73.3%)	23 (16.5%)	14 (10.1%)	139 (100%)
Health in another way	41 (30.1%)	33 (24.2%)	62 (45.5%)	136 (100%)

Table 14: responses to question about illness

Illness	Respondents who said yes	Respondents who said no	Respondents who said don’t know	Total
Mobility	90 (67.2%)	28 (20.9%)	16 (3.5%)	134 (100%)
Muscle weakness	89 (65.9%)	30 (22.2%)	16 (11.9%)	135 (100%)
Stamina and fatigue	67 (50.8%)	46 (34.8%)	19 (14.4%)	132 (100%)
Cardiovascular and breathing issues	75 (56.4%)	36 (27.1%)	22 (16.5%)	133 (100%)
Health in another way	30 (23.1%)	44 (33.8%)	56 (43.1%)	130 (100%)

148 respondents replied to this question and were able to select multiple answers.  

We have not included responses to the follow up question that gave individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence in support of their response as no responses were received.

We asked: in your view what, if any, should be the eligibility criteria for e-cargo bikes to use the increased rated power of up to 500W?

This was an open-ended question and 191 responses were received. Some of the main themes from responses were that:

• power increase should be restricted according to the loading capacity, weight and dimensions of the e-cargo bike 
• there should be mandatory licencing and insurance provisions for e-cargo bikes
• only registered e-cargo bike companies should be allowed to operate such EAPCs

We have not included responses to the follow-up question, which allowed respondents to upload evidence in support of their responses. One respondent uploaded evidence. We considered this but concluded that it did not add significantly to the available evidence.

Responses to questions about throttle assistance

We asked: do you support or oppose the proposed change to allow EAPCs to have throttle assistance up to 15.5mph (25km/h) without the need for type approval, instead of the existing 3.73mph (6km/h) as currently regulated?

Table 15: responses to question 15

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of the total responses
Support	927	43.75%
Oppose	1122	52.95%
Don’t know	70	3.30%

2 respondents did not answer this question. 

We have not included: 

• results from a follow-up question asking if the user wanted to answer the rest of the questions based on their earlier choice as it is considered irrelevant 

• responses to a follow up question giving individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence in support of their response

For this question a total of 3 respondents uploaded evidence and while we considered the information we concluded that, with the one exception given, it did not add significantly to the evidence.

The relevant evidence provided in response concerned the rules on ‘twist and go’ EAPCs in other jurisdictions, including some parts of North America, where such e-cycles can be propelled by a throttle up to 20mph.

We asked: if implemented, what do you think are the benefits of increasing throttle assistance?

Table 16: responses to question 16

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of those that selected this answer
Support riding up hills and gradients	751	79.98%
Support use of e-cycles as mobility aid by disabled people	835	88.92%
Support use of e-cycles by older people	835	88.92%
Support use of e-cycles by people who are less physically fit	810	86.26%
Support use of e-cargo bikes	633	67.41%
Reduced cost of e-cycles	250	26.62%
Reduced incentive to tamper with e-cycles	465	49.52%
Improved health outcomes	453	48.24%
Reduced emissions	670	71.35%
Reduced congestion	664	70.71%
Benefits to road safety	509	54.21%
Other reason	77	8.20%

Responses from those who selected ‘another reason’ included that:

• this could enable e-cycles to be a mobility aid for disabled people, for example as an alternative to a mobility vehicle 
• it may dissuade people from (illegally) riding an e-scooter on public roads or pavements, for example, if an alternative zero-emission and throttle propelled vehicle was available

Among main stakeholders, responses from those in favour of the proposal noted the: 

• inclusive nature of the proposals (in that this could make e-cycles more accessible to less physically fit, older and disabled people) 
• broader potential for encouraging modal shift from more polluting vehicles  

We have not included responses to the follow-up question which gave individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence in support of their response. For this question, a total of 2 respondents uploaded evidence and while we considered the information we concluded that, with the one exception given it did not add significantly to the evidence.

The relevant evidence provided in response concerned the relatively low cost of fitting a throttle to an existing e-cycle, suggesting that this can be achieved for less than £250.

We asked: if implemented, what do you think are the risks of increasing throttle assistance?

Table 17: responses to question 17

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of those that selected this answer
More severe collisions with e-cargo bikes	87	17.75%
Increased number of collision with e-cargo bikes	77	15.71%
Increased road safety risks due to greater acceleration and overtaking	129	26.33%
Increased road safety risks due to higher uncapped speed if tampered with	141	28.78%
Increased fire safety risks	44	8.98%
Reduced health benefits	139	28.37%
Risks to road safety	75	15.31%
Other reason	151	30.82%

1,631 respondents did not answer this question. Those who did reply were able to select multiple answers. 

Responses from those who selected ‘another reason’ included: 

• the risk of conflating e-cycles with other forms of micromobility 
• a concern that the police may be less able to distinguish between road legal EAPCs and other vehicles 
• a perceived risk of anti-social behaviour from riders of such EAPCs, with food delivery and gig economy workers flagged as a particular concern

Amongst main stakeholders, responses from those opposed to the proposal suggested that:

• it was unnecessary and lacked evidence to suggest that the stated aim, making e-cycles more attractive and accessible, would be achieved 
• there may be negative implications for ‘traditional’ forms of active travel, for example with users possibly more tempted by throttle-propelled EAPCs as opposed to those that require pedalling and therefore more physical exertion. It was subsequently suggested that this could make EAPCs more similar to mopeds, and there was concern that this may lead to calls for registration and mandatory insurance for such vehicles

We have not included responses to the 2 follow-up questions that gave individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence in support of their responses. No respondents uploaded evidence to the first follow-up question and 9 respondents uploaded evidence in response to the second. We considered the information but concluded that it did not add significantly to the evidence.

We asked: would you, despite your original opposition, support or oppose the implementation of the EAPC throttle assistance proposal in an alternative format?

Table 18: responses to question 18

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of the total responses
Support	194	22.61%
Oppose	542	63.17%
Don’t know	122	14.22%

858 respondents replied to this question. They were prompted to do so by their response to the earlier question where they indicated their opposition to the proposal to allow EAPCs to have throttle assistance up to 15.5mph.

We asked: would you support the alternative proposal for disabled people or e-cargo bike users?

Table 19: responses to question 19

User type	Number of responses	Percentage of those that selected this answer
Disabled users	169	92.35%
E-cargo bike users	87	47.54%

183 respondents replied to this question and were able to select more than one answer. 194 respondents were promoted to reply to this question following their response to the previous question.

We asked: in your view, the eligibility for disabled people to use e-cycles with throttle assistance up to 15.5mph (without the need for type approval) would be based on them having a particular long-term condition or illness linked to:

• mobility
• muscle weakness
• stamina and fatigue
• cardiovascular and breathing issues
• health in another way

Table 20: responses to question about long-term conditions

Long-term condition	Respondents who said yes	Respondents who said no	Respondents who said don’t know	Total
Mobility	146 (91.8%)	5 (3.1%)	8 (5.0%)	159 (100%)
Muscle weakness	135 (85.9%)	12 (7.6%)	10 (6.4%)	157 (100%)
Stamina and fatigue	113 (72.4%)	34 (21.8%)	9 (5.7%)	156 (100%)
Cardiovascular and breathing issues	121 (77.0%)	25 (15.9%)	11 (7.0%)	157 (100%)
Health in another way	33 (23.0%)	44 (30.8%)	66 (46.1%)	143 (100%)

Table 21: responses to question about illness

Illness	Respondents who said yes	Respondents who said no	Respondents who said don’t know	Total
Mobility	106 (69.3%)	31 (20.3%)	16 (10.5%)	153 (100%)
Muscle weakness	99 (66.0%)	34 (22.7%)	17 (11.3%)	150 (100%)
Stamina and fatigue	82 (54.7%)	51 (34.0%)	17 (11.3%)	150 (100%)
Cardiovascular and breathing issues	82 (55.4%)	45 (30.4%)	21 (14.2%)	148 (100%)
Health in another way	27 (19.4%)	53 (38.1%)	59 (42.4%)	139 (100%)

161 respondents replied to this question. Those who did reply were able to select multiple answers.  

We have not included responses to the follow-up question that gave individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence in support of their responses. Only 1 respondent uploaded evidence in response and while we considered the information, we concluded it did not add significantly to the evidence.

We asked: in your view, what, if any, should be the eligibility criteria for e-cargo bikes to use the increase in the throttle assistance?

This was an open-ended question and 85 responses were received. Some of the main themes from the responses were that:

• a maximum size of the e-cargo bike should be prescribed in some way 
• companies operating e-cargo bikes should be compelled to register and insure the EAPCs in question

Responses to questions about the e-cycle market in the UK

We asked: what, if any, evidence can you supply on the current size of the e-cycle stock owned by UK transport users and the total annual trips made?

There was 1 response to this question, which we have included below. It should noted that we are not validating the information it contains.

The UK e-bike market size is expected to be approximately £401.1 million in 2024 and is forecasted to grow to about £666.3 million by 2029. The information about the UK e-bike market size for 2024 and its projected growth to 2029, including the compound annual growth rate (CAGR), comes from a report on the United Kingdom e-bike market size and share analysis featured on Mordor Intelligence.

No responses to the follow-up question that sought evidence on manufacturing volumes of e-cycles were received.

We asked: do you have any further information about e-cycle manufacturers?

There were 464 responses to this question and they were able to select any of the options below.

Option 1 – the response of e-cycle manufacturers

We asked: do you have any estimate of the responses that e-cycle manufacturers will have to the proposed regulatory changes and any costs associated with that response?

There were 448 responses and 96.55% of those who responded selected this answer.

Option 2 – costs for e-cycle manufacturers

We asked: do you have any costs associated with the response that e-cycle manufacturers will have to the proposed regulatory changes?

There were 411 responses and 88.58% of those that responded selected this answer.

Option 3 – benefits for e-cycle manufacturers

We asked: do you have any benefits associated with the response that e-cycle manufacturers will have to the proposed regulatory changes?

There were 409 responses and 88.15% of those that responded selected this answer.

1657 respondents did not answer this question. Those who did reply were able to select multiple answers. We received no evidence, despite the responses above suggesting that respondents did have information to supply before the consultation closed.

We asked: specifically in respect of the proposed regulatory changes, what estimate, if any, do you have on the response of consumers and transport users to any change in e-cycle function and performance? In particular, how might it affect the number of trips taken?

Table 22: responses to question 24

Answer	Number of responses	Percentage of responses that selected this answer
Consumers	561	98.59%
Transport users	474	83.30%

1,552 respondents did not answer this question. Those who did reply were able to select multiple answers. 

We have not included responses to the follow-up question which gave individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence about the number and size of businesses that might be affected as a result of the proposals being consulted on. We considered the single response received but subsequently concluded it did not add significantly to the evidence. 

We have also not included responses to 2 follow-up questions that gave individuals the opportunity to upload any evidence on the impact of the proposals on disabled people and e-cargo bike users respectively. A single response was received for each question. The information on e-cargo bikes was a comparison of the effect of 250W versus 500W motors, concluding that a 500W motor has benefits for carrying medium loads uphill.

We considered the response in relation to disabled people but concluded it did not add significantly to the evidence.

We asked: is there anything else you would like to add?

This was an open-ended question and 958 responses were received.

Some of the main themes from the responses included: 

• concerns about the quality of infrastructure for active travel 
• some suggestion that higher power EAPCs should only be available to people over the age of 16 
• increasing penalties for tampering with an EAPC to increase its speed and that police should have more resources and expertise to address these issues 
• a call for the proposals being consulted on to be trialled before being fully implemented
• some suggestion of requiring EAPC riders to undertake mandatory training
• concerns about the market being exposed to lower quality and less safe products being imported from overseas

Next steps

We have considered the responses and are grateful for the feedback received. 

While most responses to the consultation were not in favour of the proposals, this cannot be taken to mean that this is reflective of public opinion.

While the difference between the overall number of respondents being in favour and those not in favour was relatively small, this was not the case with main stakeholder organisations, with the vast majority opposing the proposals.

Fundamentally, while we note the potential benefits to some individuals and organisations, there was a significant lack of evidence provided in response to the consultation to substantiate this. This lack of evidence also means that we cannot rule out the concerns about the proposals and research will therefore be required.

As a result of this, we will not take forward the proposals that were consulted upon.  

In the longer term, should any changes be proposed for broader micromobility, then the issue of EAPC power limits and ‘twist and go’ models may be reconsidered.