OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Magyar Kerékpárosklub

MK

Fő célja a kerékpározás hazai terjedésének elősegítése, kultúrájának megteremtése, hogy egyre többen és egyre jobb körülmények között juthassanak el A-ból B-be biciklin.

Lobbying Activity

Response to REFIT review of the Motor Insurance Directive

19 Jul 2018

I am replying on behalf of Hungarian Cyclists’ Club. We are against the inclusion of Electrically Power Assisted Cycles (EPACs) in the revision of the Motor Insurance Directive because of the following reasons: - EPACs are not motor vehicles: it’s a matter of regulatory consistency An EPAC is an Electrically Power Assisted Cycle that provides electrical assistance to the cyclist up to 25km/h only while pedalling. EPACs have maximum 250W and are excluded from the EU Type-Approval because from a regulatory point of view they are not considered motor vehicles. Power assistance is designed ONLY to complement rather than replace the main propulsion, which is by human muscle energy through manual pedalling: if an EPAC user does not pedal, he/she does not receive any assistance. Power is limited to 250W, which is a level perfectly achievable by riders without assistance. • Negative effect on mobility, sports and tourism EPACs are mobility options for those who haven’t yet chosen the bicycle as a mode of transport or leisure activity: mostly who take longer distances, live in hilly or mountain areas and the elderly. Active and environmentally-friendly modes of transportation and leisure activities should be incentivized due to their economic, environmental, social and health benefits. • Environmental and health benefits at risk A mandatory third-party liability insurance for EPACs users is an over-regulatory barrier that would have a severe impact on the environmental and health benefits deriving from cycling an EPAC: the health benefits of cycling are over 191 billion Euros per year and EPACs are zero emission vehicles that tackle the growing problem of traffic congestions in cities. If motor vehicle insurance were to be made compulsory for EPACs, EPAC users would be discouraged from cycling, and the mentioned benefits be lost. The European Commission has left out the opinions of the Transport and the Public Health sectors in trying to understand the costs and benefits within a thorough impact assessment. • Jobs and investments at risk EPACs are a key part of the cycle industry's future employment growth potential. Current EPAC sales show that in the European Union, millions of EPACs are sold every year and sales are increasing constantly. The inclusion of EPACs in the scope of the MID would directly impact an industry that invests 1 billion euro per year in research, innovation and development and which provides 90,000 direct/indirect Green jobs across the EU. A functioning Single Market stimulates trade and improves efficiency. The European Commission’s proposal would have the opposite effect as it indirectly foresees the possibility for each European country to exclude EPACs from the scope of the revised Motor Insurance Directive just in its own territory: that would undoubtedly create fragmentation at European level with a negative impact on exports within the European market. Divergent implementation by EU Member States of the Motor Insurance Directive with regard its scope of application would not represent a positive outcome. • The complexity of extending the current motor insurance regime to many millions of additional vehicles will result in significant non-compliance, leading to an increase in uninsured driving. • EPACs are not dangerous EPACs are not dangerous. No mandatory third-party liability insurance burden should be put on users. Statistics show that EPAC users are, at all effects, vulnerable road users and not the cause of serious third-party injuries. In conclusion we call on the European Parliament and Member States to amend the text. We would like to see a definition of a motor vehicle within the legislation that excludes Electrically Power Assisted Cycles. More specifically we would like to see “motor vehicle” defined with the word “solely” included in the text, therefore a motor vehicle should be a vehicle that is “…solely propelled by mechanical power”.
Read full response